Tamil Nadu Bills Case: President Murmu’s Request for Supreme Court Opinions on Time Limits
In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court verdict in the Tamil Nadu Bills case, President Droupadi Murmu has sought clarification from the apex court. The bill, which was passed by voters after a rigorous legal and procedural process, remains in limbo following its official passing in the state assembly. President Murmu’s demand for opinions from the Supreme Court is aimed at addressing concerns raised about the legal framework governing the bills.
Article 143(1): A Framework for Legal Clarification
The Supreme Court has already expressed its concern over the bill’s constitutionality, with Article 143(1) of the Constitution allowing it to seek the court’s opinion on matters of legal importance. However, this decision was made without considering the constitutional stipulations under Articles 200 and 201. These provisions outline the process for assent to bills by governors and the President, which currently lack specific deadlines or procedural requirements.
Article 200 & 201: Governance through the Bill
Article 200 of the Constitution governs the process by which governors can act on bills passed for them. This article imposes no restrictions on the timing of assent but requires that the President’s authority to seek opinions on constitutional issues is given precedence over the Governor’s decisions. Article 201 further emphasizes that the Governor should exercise due deference to the President, ensuring that their actions are justifiable within the bounds of the Constitution.
Article 361: Judicial Review and Accountability
The latest Supreme Court decision has sparked concerns about Article 361, which prohibits judicial review in cases of gubernatorial powers. Article 361 effectively bars the judiciary from overstepping its authority to ensure accountability for such decisions. This is a critical issue because it undermines the independence of the judiciary while reinforcing the need for accountability in governance.
Concerns About Time Limits
President Murmu’s concern about time limits stems from the need to balance freedom with accountability. The current system allows governors and the President to act on bills without strict scrutiny, potentially leading to overreach or disregard by higher-ups. His request for opinions from the Supreme Court aims to ensure that decisions are made in a way that aligns with constitutional principles while allowing for sufficient due deference to lower-level officials.
The Concept of “Deemed Consent”
The Supreme Court’s decision has led to discussions about the concept of “deemed consent.” While this term is not explicitly defined, some interpret it as a lack of clear authority or due process in cases involving gubernatorial actions. Critics argue that such decisions can undermine accountability and lead to excess deference to higher-ups without sufficient justification. President Murmu’s request for opinions from the Supreme Court aims to clarify these concerns and ensure that all decisions are made with due process and accountability in mind.
Conclusion
President Droupadi Murmu’s demand for opinions from the Supreme Court is a significant step toward addressing constitutional concerns related to governance in Tamil Nadu. By focusing on legal clarity and procedural fairness, he seeks to balance freedom of expression with accountability, ensuring that decisions are made in a way that aligns with the Constitution while allowing for sufficient due deference to lower-level officials.
In summary, President Murmu’s request highlights the need for a more balanced approach to governance, one that prioritizes constitutional principles while ensuring accountability and justice. His demand for opinions from the Supreme Court is not just an appeal to higher-ups but a call for transparency, fairness, and the preservation of both freedom and accountability in Indian governance.