President Droupadi Murmu invokes Article 143(1) to question SC's ruling fixing deadlines for Guvs

New Delhi: President Droupadi Murmu has invoked the rarely used Article 143 (1) of the Constitution to send a reference to the Supreme Court to question its order setting timelines for governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the Supreme Court's opinion in matters of legal and public importance. A Constitution bench will be constituted to answer the President's reference.

In her reference, Murmu has posed 14 questions to the top court, saying they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the court's opinion.

The President has sought the Supreme court's opinion on whether such deadlines can be imposed judicially. Among other things, she also questioned the court's direction that there would be a deemed consent in case of failure to abide by the timeline set by it for grant assent to the bills.

It might be mentioned here that instead of seeking a review of the top court's order, the government chose to invoke the rarely used Article 143 (1).

The 14 questions posed by President Murmu are:

• What options does a governor have when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
• Is the governor bound by the council of ministers advice while exercising all the options available with him when a bill is presented before him under Article 200?
• Is the Governor's discretion under Article 200 justiciable?
• Does Article 361 bar judicial review of a Governor's actions under Article 200?
• Can courts impose timelines and dictate procedures for the Governor under Article 200 in the absence of constitutional provisions?
• Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 justiciable?
• In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can courts prescribe timelines and procedures for the President under Article 201?
• Is the President required to seek advice of the SC by way of a reference under Article 143 and take the opinion of the SC when the governor reserves a bill for the President's assent or otherwise?
• Are the decisions of the governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?
• Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142?
• Can a bill become law without the Governor's assent under Article 200?
• In view of the proviso to Article 145(3), is it not mandatory for any bench of the Supreme Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?
• Are the powers of the SC under Article 142 limited to procedures or extend to issuing directions /passing orders which can override substantive constitutional provisions?
• Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the SC to resolve Centre-state disputes except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?