On May 17, 2025, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on whether the judiciary can mandate time limits for the President and Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures.

This move follows the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, where the Court directed that the President must decide on reserved bills within a maximum of three months.

Constitutional Provision – Article 143(1):
Article 143(1) empowers the President of India to refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its advisory opinion. While the opinion is not binding, it carries substantial constitutional weight and influence.

Significance:
This is a rare invocation of Article 143 and highlights a growing constitutional debate on the separation of powers. The core issue revolves around the constitutional silence on timelines for executive action on legislative matters and whether the judiciary can fill this gap through interpretative mandates.

Legal Questions Raised:
President Murmu has presented 14 questions to the Court, raising key concerns such as:

• Can the Supreme Court prescribe timelines for the President or Governors to act on state bills?
• Is the concept of "deemed assent" constitutionally valid in the absence of explicit provisions?
• Does such judicial intervention amount to overreach into executive functions?

Political Reactions:
The reference has sparked criticism from opposition-ruled states, especially Tamil Nadu. Chief Minister M.K. Stalin denounced the move as an attempt to weaken federalism and challenge the Supreme Court’s authority. He argued that the reference is a political tool to support Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to several state bills, which had prompted the original litigation.

Implications:

• Judicial-Executive Balance: The outcome of this reference will influence how much the judiciary can guide or limit executive discretion in legislative processes.
• Federal Relations: The issue raises concerns about Centre–State relations, especially in cases where Governors, appointed by the Centre, delay action on bills passed by opposition-led states.
• Legislative Functioning: If the Court affirms timelines or deemed assent, it could streamline state legislative processes and prevent undue executive delay.
• Precedential Value: The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, though non-binding, may set a benchmark for future disputes involving constitutional interpretation and federal governance.