Escalating Friction Between the Executive and the Judiciary

President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on 14 critical legal questions regarding the roles and powers of the President and Governors. The queries primarily address whether the Supreme Court can impose timelines on constitutional authorities and the extent of its powers under Article 142 to ensure “complete justice”.

Key Issues Raised

• Article 142 Powers: Can these powers override the constitutional roles of the President and Governors?
• State Government Challenges: Are state governments exploiting the court’s plenary powers to challenge the Centre?
• Timeline Imposition: Is it constitutionally valid to impose a timeline on the President or Governor to act on a bill?
• Judicial Review: Are decisions made by a Governor under Article 200 subject to judicial review?

Reactions and Comments

The Centre has described the Supreme Court’s April 8 order as “clear overreach” and has requested the formation of a Constitution Bench to resolve the matter, following the court’s direction to act on ten bills that had been pending without executive approval. Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar expressed concerns over this ruling, terming it an instance of “judicial overreach”.

Supreme Court's Position

The Supreme Court criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor for delays in processing state legislation. It clarified that under Article 201, a decision on a reserved bill must be taken within three months, asserting that the President does not have a “pocket veto”, thereby disallowing prolonged inaction.