President Droupadi Murmu has invoked a rare constitutional provision to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on 14 key questions regarding whether the President and Governors must follow timelines when deciding on state bills referred for their consent, especially when the Constitution does not specify any. This move follows the Supreme Court’s April 8 ruling, which imposed deadlines for Governors and the President to act on such bills.

The case arose from Tamil Nadu’s challenge against its Governor for delaying assent on 10 bills, which were later re-passed by the state legislature. The Court ruled the Governor’s withholding of assent illegal and directed “deemed” assent under Article 142. It sets deadlines: Governors must act within three months and “forthwith” or one month if the bill is re-enacted; the President must decide within three months of receiving bills. The Court also mandated the President to seek its advisory opinion under Article 143 if a Governor refers to a bill seen as “patently unconstitutional.”

The 14 questions focus on the constitutional powers and discretion of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201, their justiciability, the imposition of timelines by courts, and the scope of Supreme Court powers under Articles 142, 143, 131, and 361. This reference seeks clarity on these complex issues amid ongoing disputes over bill approvals in various states.