President Droupadi Murmu Seeks Supreme Court's Guidance on Governor's Powers Over State Bills

 President Droupadi Murmu:

In a landmark move that could reshape the relationship between India’s constitutional authorities, President Droupadi Murmu has formally asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on key constitutional questions concerning the powers of Governors over state legislation.

The request comes under Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to seek the Court's advisory opinion on matters of law or public importance.

The Supreme Court’s Deadline on Governors

This development follows the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on April 8, 2025, which directed that Governors and the President must act on state bills within three months, citing concerns over indefinite delays. This ruling sparked a national conversation on constitutional boundaries, separation of powers, and the role of Governors in the legislative process.

With tensions rising between state governments and Raj Bhavans, the President has stepped in—not to take sides, but to seek clarity.

What Did the President Ask?

President Murmu has posed 14 important questions to the apex court. These questions go to the heart of India's federal structure, governance, and the checks and balances between constitutional offices. Here’s what she’s asking:

1. What are a Governor’s options when a bill is sent to them under Article 200 of the Constitution?
2. Is a Governor legally bound to follow the advice of the elected state cabinet?
3. Can a Governor’s discretion be reviewed by courts?
4. Does Article 361, which protects Governors from legal action, also shield them from judicial scrutiny on legislative delays?
5. Can courts set deadlines for Governors when the Constitution doesn’t specify one?
6. If a Governor or President fails to act within a time limit, can the bill be assumed to have been approved—“deemed assent”?
7. Can courts dictate how a Governor should act under Article 200?
8. Do such deadlines interfere with the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive?
9. Is the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that unacted bills must be cleared in three months constitutionally valid?
10. Can courts override the Constitution’s text through interpretation?
11. Do courts have the power to frame procedures for the President and Governors in legislative matters?
12. How do such court-imposed timelines affect the federal balance between the Centre and states?
13. Do these directions represent a judicial overreach into executive functions?
14. If there is a conflict between the judiciary’s instructions and constitutional provisions, which one should prevail?

Why This Matters

These aren’t just legal questions—they strike at the core of India’s democratic structure. Delays by Governors in signing bills have been criticized by elected state governments as undermining democracy, while others argue that Governors must exercise their constitutional judgment carefully.

By seeking the Court’s opinion, President Murmu is not accusing or defending anyone—she is taking a balanced, constitutional route to ensure clarity, stability, and transparency in how India’s federal system functions.

The Supreme Court’s response to this reference will have far-reaching implications—not just for the Governors and state governments of today, but for how future governments function .