President Murmu Questions SC Order on Time Limit for Assent to Bills
President Droupadi Murmu has questioned the Supreme Court’s verdict mandating deadlines for presidential and gubernatorial assent to state bills, calling it constitutionally unsound.
President Droupadi Murmu on Wednesday raised concerns over the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling that set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on state bills referred by Governors. The court also held that Governors should not unduly delay their assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
Murmu pointed out that the Constitution, specifically Articles 200 and 201, provides no such timelines or procedural mandates for either the President or Governors when considering state legislation.
The President posed a series of pointed questions to the judiciary regarding the constitutional implications of the ruling:
- How can the Supreme Court substitute the President or Governor’s powers under the Constitution with its own powers under Article 142?
- Are states misusing the “plenary power” of the Supreme Court against the Centre?
- How can a timeline be prescribed for the President and Governors when the Constitution is silent on it?
- What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200?
These questions, sources said, reflect growing unease in the executive over what is being viewed as judicial overreach into the roles of constitutional authorities.
In April, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that the President must decide on state Bills reserved by Governors within three months. The court was responding to a plea by the Tamil Nadu government, which accused Governor R N Ravi of indefinitely withholding assent to 10 Bills passed between 2020 and 2023.
The court warned that unexplained delays in signing Bills could violate constitutional norms and permitted judicial review in such instances.
President Murmu highlighted that Articles 200 and 201—dealing with gubernatorial and presidential assent—do not stipulate any timeline or procedural framework for action. She emphasized that constitutional silence on the matter must be respected, and judicial directives cannot override explicit provisions or the lack thereof.
The Supreme Court ruling was seen as a win for opposition-ruled states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Punjab, which have accused their Governors of acting as political agents by withholding or delaying approval of key legislation.
The April judgment was intended to address this gridlock by mandating action within a reasonable timeframe. However, the President’s intervention now brings a new constitutional dimension to the debate.
