In the aftermath of the Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu has sent a reference to the Supreme Court asking the top court to consider whether timelines can be imposed on Governors to act on Bills in the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed time limit. Article 143(1) of the Constitution allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion in matters of legal and public importance.

President Murmu has sent 14-pointed questions to the apex court for its opinion, while emphasising that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which govern the process of assent to bills by Governors and the President, do not prescribe any deadlines or specific procedural requirements.

The President asked the apex court to report its opinion on constitutional options available to a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India. Further, it questioned if the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor on Bills is justiciable, when Article 361 of the Constitution puts an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to gubernatorial actions.

President Murmu has questioned the Supreme Court’s direction that there would be a deemed consent in case of failure to abide by the timeline set by it for granting assent to the bills. The reference states that the concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor.