‘Can Courts Impose Deadlines? President Droupadi Murmu Seeks Supreme Court’s Advice on Limits of Its Powers

New Delhi: President Droupadi Murmu has raised serious constitutional questions after the Supreme Court recently set a deadline for her to decide on Bills reserved by the Tamil Nadu Governor. The President has now responded by questioning whether the top court can fix such deadlines, stating that the Constitution does not mention any timeframe for these decisions.

“The Constitution does not provide such a time frame,” President Murmu said.

President cites Articles 200 and 201

In her response, President Murmu highlighted that Article 200 of the Constitution allows a Governor to either give assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve it for the President’s consideration. However, this Article does not mention how much time the Governor can take to make a decision.

Similarly, Article 201 deals with the President's powers once a Bill is reserved by a Governor. It gives the President authority to approve or reject such Bills, but again, there is no deadline mentioned for taking such a decision.

President Flags Broader Constitutional Concerns

The President pointed out that Governors and the President are given discretionary powers by the Constitution, especially in matters involving national interest, federal balance, and legal clarity. She said that some recent court judgments have given conflicting views on whether the President’s decisions under Article 201 can be reviewed by courts.

She also flagged that many state governments file petitions directly under Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) instead of Article 131, which is meant for Union-state disputes. This trend has raised questions about whether such federal issues are being handled correctly in court.

Murmu also questioned the idea of "deemed assent", saying that assuming assent is granted just because there is a delay goes against the Constitution and takes away the discretionary powers of Governors and the President.

READ MORE: Schools Reopen in Border Areas of Jammu & Kashmir After Tensions Ease | Republic World

President Envokes Article 143 for Supreme Court’s Advice

To settle the legal confusion, the President has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution — which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of public importance.

She has referred 14 important questions to the court, including:

• What can a Governor legally do when a Bill is sent for approval?
• Does the Governor have to follow the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers?
• Can courts review the Governor’s decisions under Article 200?
• Does Article 361 prevent courts from questioning the Governor’s actions?
• Can the judiciary set deadlines for Governors despite no timeline in the Constitution?
• Can courts also review the President’s decisions under Article 201?
• Are timelines allowed for the President’s role in assenting to state laws?
• Is the President required to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 in such cases?
• Can the Governor’s or President’s decisions be challenged in court before a Bill becomes law?
• Can the judiciary overrule constitutional powers using Article 142?
• Can a state law come into effect without the Governor’s assent?
• Should all such important constitutional questions be heard by a five-judge bench?
• Can the Supreme Court issue orders under Article 142 that go beyond what the Constitution allows?
• Can court cases between the Union and states be settled without using Article 131?

President Seeks Legal Clarity on Powers

By raising these doubts, President Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to clearly define the roles and limits of the Governor, President, and judiciary when it comes to lawmaking. Her move comes at a time when tensions between state governments and Governors are increasing across India.

The President’s intervention is expected to trigger a fresh constitutional debate, especially over the balance of power between the executive and judiciary.

(With inputs from ANI)