President Murmu Asks Supreme Court: Can Judiciary Prescribe Timelines and Procedures for Assent to Bills?
In a significant development with potential constitutional implications, President Droupadi Murmu has raised a crucial question before the Supreme Court of India: Can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for granting assent to legislative bills?
The query emerged during the hearing of petitions concerning the delay by Governors in providing assent to bills passed by state legislatures—an issue that has sparked debates around the separation of powers and the role of constitutional authorities.
President Murmu’s submission, made through the Union Government, seeks clarity on whether the judiciary can regulate how and when a constitutional functionary like the President or Governor discharges their duty under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, which pertain to granting assent to bills.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has been hearing pleas—especially from states like Tamil Nadu and Punjab—accusing Governors of holding back important bills without timely action. The states have argued that such delays undermine the federal structure and legislative autonomy.
President Murmu's reference adds a new dimension to the ongoing debate. Legal experts interpret her intervention as a defense of the discretionary powers vested in the office of the President and Governors, and a possible pushback against what some see as judicial overreach.
The central question now before the apex court is: Can the judiciary issue directions that effectively bind constitutional authorities in how they perform their duties?
The court's eventual ruling could redefine the contours of power-sharing between the executive, legislature, and judiciary in India. The outcome may also set critical precedents for the role of Governors in the legislative process and the enforceability of constitutional timelines.
The matter continues to be under judicial consideration, and a verdict is expected to have wide-ranging implications for India’s constitutional framework.
FAQ
1. What is the issue raised by President Droupadi Murmu?
President Murmu has asked the Supreme Court whether the judiciary can impose timelines and prescribe the manner in which constitutional functionaries, like the President or Governors, grant assent to bills passed by legislatures.
2. What triggered this question?
Several state governments, including Tamil Nadu and Punjab, approached the Supreme Court over delays by Governors in assenting to state bills, raising concerns about legislative paralysis.
3. What part of the Constitution governs assent to bills?
Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution outline the powers and options available to Governors and the President regarding bills passed by state legislatures.
4. Why is this issue important?
It touches upon the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, and tests the limits of judicial intervention in executive functions.
5. Can the judiciary currently enforce timelines for bill assent?
As of now, the Constitution does not specify a fixed timeframe within which assent must be granted or denied, and the Supreme Court has not ruled definitively on enforcing such timelines.
6. What could be the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision?
The ruling could redefine the discretionary powers of Governors and the President, set binding timelines, and clarify whether courts can direct constitutional authorities in how they discharge their duties.
7. Has this issue arisen before?
Yes, constitutional experts and previous court cases have raised similar concerns about undue delays by Governors, but President Murmu’s query brings it directly to the Supreme Court's attention at the highest level.
Publish on may 15,2025 by :selvi