The president’s response emphasized that Article 200 of the Indian Constitution describes the governor’s power and the process of granting or denying the consent of the bill and reserves a bill for the president’s consideration. However, Article 200 does not designate any timetable for the governor to exercise these constitutional options.
Similarly, Article 201 outlines the powers and procedures for the President to agree or withhold consent to the bill, but does not impose any deadline or procedures for the exercise of these constitutional powers.
Furthermore, the Indian Constitution recognizes that in many cases, the president’s consent is required before legislation takes effect in a state. The discretion of governors and presidents under Articles 200 and 201 is shaped by several considerations, including federalism, legal unity, national integrity and security, and the doctrine of separation of power.
Apart from the complexity, the Supreme Court’s judgment on whether the president’s consent in Article 201 is subject to judicial scrutiny. The president’s response pointed out that states often hear the Supreme Court under Article 32 (more than Article 131), prompting the president’s response, raising federal issues that inherently require constitutional interpretation.
The scope of Article 142, especially in matters governed by the Constitution or statutory provisions, also calls on the Supreme Court for its opinion. The concept of “consideration” for a governor or president contradicts the constitutional framework and fundamentally limits its discretion.
In view of these unresolved legal issues and general circumstances, President Mourmu cited Article 143(1) of the Constitution to forward the critical issues to the Supreme Court. These include:
What constitutional options can the governor use under section 200?
Is the governor advised by the Council of Ministers to exercise these options?
Does the Governor undergo judicial review under Section 200?
Does Article 361 impose an absolute standard on judicial review of the Governor’s conduct under Article 200?
Despite the absence of a constitutional timetable, can a court impose a deadline and prescribed procedure when exercising its powers under its exercise?
Does the President accept judicial review under Article 201’s discretion?
Can the courts provide timetable and procedural requirements for the president to exercise discretion under Article 201?
Does the President have to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Section 143 when deciding the bill that the governor reserves?
Is the governor and the president’s judgment under Sections 200 and 201 feasible before the law officially takes effect?
Can the judiciary modify or cover the constitutional powers exercised by the president or governor through Article 142?
Will the state law take effect without the consent of Article 200?
Any judge of the Supreme Court must first determine whether the case involves a substantive constitutional interpretation and quote it to the five judges under section 145(3)?
Does the power of the Supreme Court as stipulated in Article 142 exceed procedural issues to be directed in contradiction with the existing constitution or statutory provisions?
Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union and the State Government through any means other than Article 131 litigation?
By raising these questions, the President seeks to clarify the constitutional boundaries of the executive and judicial authorities, thereby strengthening the need for judicial interpretation in a national sense.
