Decoding Presidential Reference: A Constitutional Enquiry

President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on timelines for presidential assent to state bills. This follows an April verdict questioning the Governor's authority. Murmu posed 14 questions to the apex court, stirring political reactions and emphasizing constitutional interpretation.

President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143(1) to consult the Supreme Court on whether timelines can be imposed on the presidential assent concerning state bills. This move arises following an April 8 verdict by the Supreme Court, which addressed the powers of Governors.

The President has presented 14 questions to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on the constitutional provisions outlined in Articles 200 and 201, which detail the President and Governor's roles in legislative processes. The ruling has sparked significant political discourse.

The Centre opted for a presidential reference to bypass a review of the contentious April verdict, highlighting the imperative for legal clarity on the powers concerning bills reserved for the President's consent.

(With inputs from agencies.)