Why did President Murmu invoke rarely used Article 143 (1), questioning Supreme Court?

Indian President Droupadi Murmu questioned the Supreme Court, seeking opinion and consideration on 14 constitutional points over a month after the top court gave an order on April 8, setting a deadline for assent to bills by the President and Governors. The president said that the Constitution does not specify any such timeline.

Exercising her power under Article 143 (1), which is rarely used, President Murmu said that it appears that the questions of law raised by her are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to ask the opinion of the Supreme Court of India on them.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

What is Article 143 (1)?

Under Article 143 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the president can exercise their power to consult the Supreme Court.

According to the provision, “If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.”

Union government questions Supreme Court

The Supreme Court judgement, which was delivered by Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan in the case concerning the Tamil Nadu government and the governor, ruled that governors must act on bills within three months. It added that the President must do the same once a bill is referred. Following the verdict, the president invoked Article 143 (1) to clarify what the apex court believes are constitutional overreaches by the court.

President Murmu highlighted that Articles 200 and 201, which relate to the assent process by governors and the president, do not state any time limit. “The exercise of constitutional discretion by governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, respectively, are essentially governed by polycentric considerations, including federalism, uniformity of laws, integrity and security of the nation, doctrine of separation of powers,” she said.

According to the Constitution, the governor can either grant assent ot return a bill, except money bills, for reconsideration by the assembly. If the bill is passed by the assembly again, the governor is bound to assent.

Article 201 does not fix any deadline for action when a bill is sent to the president for consideration. However, the Supreme Court ordered a three-month limit for the governor and the president to take action. According to the court, the governor must assent within a month if a bill is passed again by the state assembly.

Watch | India-Pakistan tensions: PM Modi briefs President Murmu on 'Operation Sindoor'

President Murmu also objected to the court invoking Article 142, saying that 10 bills pending with the Tamil Nadu governor would be considered to have received assent.

“The concept of a deemed assent of the president and the governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamentally circumscribes the powers of the president and the governor,” she said.