President Murmu questions Supreme Court’s deadline ruling on state bills: ” Can timelines be imposed?”

In a strong response to the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgement that set deadlines for the Governor and the President to act on state bills, President Droupadi Murmu has firmly challenged the constitutional validity of such a directive. The President’s rebuttal stated that the Constitution does not prescribe any specific time frame for the Governor or the President to grant or withhold assent to bills passed by state legislatures.

President Murmu referred to Article 200 of the Constitution, which outlines the Governor’s powers regarding assent to bills, including the option to grant, withhold, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. She pointed out that the Article does not impose any timeline for the Governor to act upon these options. Likewise, Article 201, which governs the President’s decision-making authority on such bills, does not lay down any procedural deadlines either.

President Murmu further emphasised that the Constitution allows for several situations where Presidential assent is a prerequisite for state laws to take effect. She highlighted that the discretionary powers granted to the Governor and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are influenced by broader