On the very day Justice BR Gavai assumed office as the 52nd Chief Justice of India, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on a critical constitutional question: Can the judiciary impose timelines on the President’s discretion in granting assent to bills?
The move marks a significant constitutional confrontation, as Murmu posed 14 pointed questions to the apex court, mainly challenging the judicial directive that mandated a three-month deadline for the President to decide on bills under Article 201—a timeline introduced by the Supreme Court in its April 8, 2025 ruling. This judgment, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in the backdrop of a prolonged standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi over pending legislation. The court had termed the Governor’s delays as “erroneous and illegal” and took the unprecedented step of invoking Article 142 to grant assent to the bills.
Murmu’s referral questions whether, in the absence of constitutionally defined timelines, the judiciary can impose such limits on the President’s discretionary powers. One key question asks if judicial directions can prescribe how and when the President must act under Article 201.
The Tamil Nadu-Governor conflict, simmering since 2021, involved delays in assenting to 10 bills. The Supreme Court ruling not only compelled assent but empowered state governments to seek a writ of mandamus if the Governor or President failed to act within the set period. This expansion of judicial oversight into legislative processes has now been formally challenged by the President.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Governor, had earlier warned the court that setting deadlines for presidential assent encroaches upon powers deemed non-justiciable, citing the 1983 Hoechst Pharmaceuticals case. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, relying on the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission reports, rejected open-ended delays, interpreting “as soon as possible” in Article 200 to mean within a reasonable, court-enforced timeframe.
With President Murmu’s Article 143 reference, the spotlight is now on Justice Gavai’s court. Known for his commitment to constitutional supremacy, Gavai had recently remarked, “Neither executive, parliament nor judiciary—CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME!”
Legal experts believe the Supreme Court’s upcoming response could reshape the power dynamics between the Centre and States, and redefine the constitutional roles of Governors and the President in India’s legislative process.
