Can SC set deadlines for President? Murmu seeks top court's opinion on 14 questions

President Droupadi Murmu has asked a barrage of questions to the Supreme Court as she responded to its last month’s landmark judgement that set a three-month limit for the head of the state to act on state bills.

President Murmu asked the top court how it could pass such a judgment when the Indian Constitution has no stipulations on the time taken by the president to veto or pocket veto bills.

She has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on a legal issue or matter of public importance, exercising the presidential power to consult the court in such cases.

What did the court say?

The apex court passed a judgment in April on the State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr and held that the Governors cannot sit over bills passed by the state legislature indefinitely.

A bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan laid down the provisions of Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution as it passed the judgment.

The bench stated that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 conveys a sense of urgency and does not permit the governor to “sit on the bills and exercise pocket veto over them.”

More from India

Supreme Court verdict on reservation in promotions for SC/STs must ensure filtering out of creamy layer candidates SC irked by some 'HC judges unnecessarily taking coffee breaks', orders performance audit

What has Prez Murmu asked?

Here are all the questions posed by President Murmu:

2. What are the constitutional options before a governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200?

3. Is the governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the council of ministers while exercising all the options available to him when a Bill is presented before him?

4. Is the constitutional discretion by the guv under Art 200 justiciable?

5. Is Article 361 an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to actions of a guv under Article 200?

6. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timeline be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the purpose of exercise of all powers under Article 200 by the governor?

7. Is exercise of constitutional discretion by President under Article 201 justiciable?

8. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and manner of exercise prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201?

9. In the light of the constitutional scheme governing powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of SC by way of a reference under Article 143 and take SC’s opinion when the governor reserves a Bill for President’s assent or otherwise?

10. Are decisions of the guv and President under Articles 200 and 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for courts to undertake judicial adjudication over contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?

11. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and orders of/by President/governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142?

12. Is the law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor?

13. In view of Article 145(3) is it not mandatory for any bench of SC to first decide whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to it a bench of minimum five judges?

14. Do the powers of SC under Article 142 limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 extend to issuing directions/passing orders contrary to or inconsistent with the existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?

15. Does Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of SC to resolve disputes between Union government and state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131?