President Droupadi Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion about its ruling on April 8 that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures, The Indian Express reported on Thursday.

Referencing the 14 questions submitted under Article 143(1) of the Constitution, Murmu asked whether the actions of governors and the president could be tried in court, and whether such timelines could be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the law.

Article 143(1) allows the president to ask for the opinion and the advice of the Supreme Court on matters of legal and public importance. In light of the reference, the court will have to set up a constitution bench to provide answers, Bar and Bench reported.

The court’s April 8 ruling had come on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for over three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president.

Most of the bills related to higher education, including measures to remove the governor as chancellor of state universities. Of the 10 re-enacted bills sent to the president in November 2023, one was approved, seven were rejected and two were pending.

The court held that Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, some of which were pending since January 2020, and refer them to the president after they were re-enacted by the Assembly was “illegal and erroneous”.

The court declared that the 10 bills would be deemed to have received the governor’s assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature. It also set aside any action taken by the president based on the governor’s reference.

In its 414-page judgement, the court also imposed a three-month deadline on the president to approve or reject such bills.

In her reference submitted in the court, the president noted that Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution, which outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president, do not prescribe deadlines or specific procedural requirements, Bar and Bench reported.

“Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?” the president asked. “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the governor?”

She also sought to know whether “the decisions of the governor and the president under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force?” The Indian Express reported.

‘Grave circumstance’: Tamil Nadu CM

On Thursday, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin criticised the presidential reference, claiming that the Union government was “attempting to subvert the constitutional position already settled by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and other precedents”.

Calling it “grave circumstances,” the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam chief urged all non-Bharatiya Janata Party states governments and party leaders to “join this legal struggle” to defend the Constitution, according to the newspaper.

“This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate,” said Stalin. “This is nothing but a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected state governments by placing them under the control of governors serving as agents of the Union government.”