President Droupadi Murmu has made a 14-point reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, seeking clarity on whether a timeline can be set for the President to decide on bills reserved by Governors under Article 201. The key question is whether the Supreme Court can impose a three-month timeline for such decisions, despite the absence of a constitutionally specified time limit.

Read Also:- UP Government Issues Guidelines for Using Gangsters Act After Supreme Court's Intervention

This reference is linked to the landmark Tamil Nadu Governor matter, decided on April 8, where a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan addressed the delay by Governor R.N. Ravi in clearing 10 state bills, some pending since January 2020. The Court termed the Governor's delay as "illegal and erroneous" and, for the first time, declared that the bills were "deemed to have been assented to."

1. Governor's Options on Bills: What are the constitutional choices available to a Governor when presented with a bill under Article 200?
2. Binding Nature of Ministerial Advice: Is the Governor bound to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers while deciding on a bill under Article 200?
3. Justiciability of Governor's Discretion: Can the Governor's discretion under Article 200 be legally challenged?
4. Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions: Does Article 361 bar courts from reviewing the Governor's actions under Article 200?
5. Judicially Imposed Timelines: Can courts impose timelines on the Governor’s decision-making process under Article 200?
6. President's Discretion: Can the President’s discretion under Article 201 be legally reviewed?
7. Timelines for President’s Decisions: Can the Supreme Court set a timeline for the President’s decisions under Article 201?
8. President’s Obligation to Seek Court’s Opinion: Must the President seek the Supreme Court’s view under Article 143 when a bill is reserved by the Governor?

Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Employment Bond: 2 Lakh Penalty for Premature Resignation Valid

The President's reference also questions the concept of "deemed assent," where a bill is considered approved due to inaction. She argued that this concept is "alien to the constitutional scheme" and restricts the President's and Governor's powers.

“The concept of ‘deemed assent’ of the President and the Governor is fundamentally ‘alien’ to the constitutional scheme.” — President Droupadi Murmu

The Supreme Court’s response to these questions will have a significant impact on the balance of power between the state executive (Governor) and the central executive (President). It will also clarify the constitutional limitations on their discretionary powers, especially in the absence of clear timelines.