Exploring the Constitutional Questions on Presidential and Governor Roles in May 2025
President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court some important questions about approving state bills. This issue is about how the President and Governors handle laws passed by state legislatures. It was High Time When President Murmu took this step. The Indian Constitution, under Articles 200 and 201, explains the roles of the President and Governors in approving or rejecting state bills, but it doesn’t set any time limits for their decisions. Recently, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, saying that Governors and the President must act within a certain time. This raised a question: can courts set such deadlines when the Constitution doesn’t mention them? To clear up this confusion, President Murmu asked the Supreme Court 14 questions. She wants to ensure that the rules are clear, so there are no delays or disputes between the central government and states, helping governance run smoothly.
What Are the Main Questions President Murmu Asked?
You might want to know what exactly President Murmu asked the Supreme Court. Her 14 questions focus on the roles of the President and Governors in the bill approval process. Here are some key ones: Can courts force the President or Governors to follow a timeline for approving bills, even though the Constitution doesn’t mention any deadlines? What choices does a Governor have under Article 200 when they get a bill, and do they have to follow the state cabinet’s advice? Can people challenge the President’s or Governors’ decisions about bills in court? Does Article 361, which protects them from being sued for official actions, stop courts from reviewing their decisions? And, is the idea of “deemed assent”—where a bill is automatically approved if not decided in time—allowed under the Constitution? These questions aim to clarify how much power the President and Governors have and whether courts can step in.
What Does This Mean for India’s Governance System?
President Murmu’s questions are important because delays in approving bills have caused tensions between states and the central government. For example, if a Governor delays a bill, it can slow down a state’s work, leading to arguments about who is responsible. The Supreme Court’s opinion, even though it’s not legally binding, will help guide how these roles should work. It will also show how India balances power between the central government, states, and the judiciary. This clarity can prevent future conflicts and ensure that laws are made and approved without unnecessary delays, keeping India’s federal system strong and fair.
