President Murmu’s 14-Question Constitutional Reference to Supreme Court
A Landmark Inquiry into Governors’ and President’s Powers
In a significant constitutional development, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 critical legal questions. This reference is rooted in the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment, which set timelines for Governors and the President to act on state legislation. While the Court’s decision was meant to streamline the legislative process and avoid unwarranted delays, it has now sparked an important debate on constitutional boundaries, institutional discretion, and judicial overreach.
This presidential reference opens the door for a deeper interpretation of Articles 200 and 201, which define how Governors and the President handle bills passed by State Assemblies. The reference is unprecedented in scope and raises fundamental questions about the balance of powers between the executive and judiciary.
Background: Why the President Sought the Supreme Court’s Opinion
The Supreme Court, in its April 8 verdict, mandated that Governors should not delay their assent to bills and should act within a reasonable period. The Court’s objective was to prevent political stalling and ensure efficiency in lawmaking at the state level. However, President Murmu’s response implies that such directions may unintentionally encroach upon the discretionary powers vested in the offices of the Governor and the President under the Constitution.
After receiving the certified copy of the verdict on April 12, 2025, the Attorney General of India, Solicitor General, and the Union Law Ministry deliberated over the legal implications. By May 7, a refined set of 14 questions had been prepared and submitted to the President’s Secretariat. On May 14, the reference was officially sent to the Supreme Court.
Article 143(1): The President’s Power to Seek Legal Opinion
Under Article 143(1), the President is empowered to refer legal or constitutional matters of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. The questions in this case deal with how constitutional discretion should be interpreted and whether courts can direct timelines or impose constraints on that discretion.
This is not a review of the Court’s verdict. It is a distinct constitutional mechanism meant for clarity and authoritative interpretation on unsettled legal questions that affect the foundational structure of governance.
The 14 Constitutional Questions – Full Text
Below are the exact 14 questions referred by President Droupadi Murmu to the Supreme Court:
- What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
- In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?
- Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?
- In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?
- In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by invoking Article 143 of the Constitution of India before withholding assent to a Bill under Article 201?
- Is the concept of ‘deemed assent’ constitutionally permissible, and can it be introduced by judicial interpretation in the absence of any express provision in the Constitution?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to issue directions under Article 142 of the Constitution to prescribe timelines for the Governor and the President to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures?
- Can the Supreme Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, issue writs or directions to the Governor or the President regarding the exercise of their constitutional functions under Articles 200 and 201?
- Does the imposition of judicially prescribed timelines for the Governor and the President to act on Bills infringe upon the doctrine of separation of powers and the autonomy of constitutional authorities?
- Is it within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the validity of the actions or inactions of the Governor or the President under Articles 200 and 201, considering the constitutional scheme and the doctrine of separation of powers?
- What is the extent of judicial review available against the actions or inactions of the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201, and what remedies are available to address any grievances arising therefrom?
Key Legal Themes and Doctrinal Challenges
1. Discretion vs. Obligation
A core issue raised in the reference is whether the Governor and President possess meaningful discretion under Articles 200 and 201, or whether they are constitutionally bound to act solely on the advice of the State or Union Council of Ministers. The questions test the very boundaries of executive discretion within India’s parliamentary democracy.
2. Judicial Review and Separation of Powers
The reference challenges the extent to which the judiciary can direct or interfere in the exercise of discretionary powers by constitutional authorities. It brings to the fore the delicate doctrine of separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.
3. Timelines and Deemed Assent
The idea of courts prescribing strict timelines, or introducing the concept of “deemed assent” in cases of delay, is controversial. The Constitution does not mention these concepts explicitly. Whether the judiciary can fill this silence through interpretation is now under scrutiny.
Political and Institutional Reactions
Political leaders and legal experts have reacted strongly. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin called the move “constitutionally regressive,” arguing that it shields Governors who delay or withhold assent to key state bills for political reasons. Some constitutional scholars argue, however, that the reference is essential to safeguard the dignity and independence of high constitutional offices.
There is also a growing concern that federalism is being tested—as more state bills are held back or returned without assent—sometimes years after being passed.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will soon constitute a five-judge Constitution Bench to examine the reference. Its opinion will not be binding, but such advisory opinions have historically been treated with high authority. The Bench will have to interpret the scope and intent of the framers of the Constitution, navigate the complex balance of power, and set the tone for future relations between the judiciary and executive offices.
Conclusion
President Murmu’s Article 143(1) reference is one of the most constitutionally significant developments in recent years. By placing 14 profound questions before the Supreme Court, this move invites a constitutional reckoning that will shape the contours of federalism, governance, and the balance of power in India for decades to come.
As the nation awaits the Supreme Court’s opinion, one thing is clear: this moment represents not a clash of institutions, but a call for clarity, coherence, and constitutional wisdom.
