CJI BR Gavai's first big challenge: President flags Supreme Court overreach, asks 'how can timeline be prescribed for Prez, Governor?'

As tensions between the judiciary and the executive widen, President Droupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court to clarify 14 questions of law regarding the powers of the President and Governors. These questions involved setting a timeline for the Governor and President's assent to bills and the use of the Supreme Court's extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver complete justice.

The President has used the powers conferred under Article 143 of the Constitution to seek advice on the Supreme Court's decision in the Tamil Nadu governor case. "How can Supreme Court put a timeline when the Constitution does not?" President Droupadi Murmu asked the apex court. 

As per the list of questions accessed by India Today TV, here are a few of the questions referred to the Supreme Court: 

1. How can the Supreme Court substitute the President /Governor's powers under the Constitution with its own powers under Article 142?
2. Are states misusing the "plenary power" of the Supreme Court against Center?
3. How can a timeline be prescribed for the President and Governor?
4. How are the decisions of the Governor under article 200 justiciable?

Moreover, the Centre flagged the April 8 order of the Supreme Court's division bench as "clear overreach" and asked the top court to set up a constitution bench to clarify the issue. Last month, Indian Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar raised concerns over the Supreme Court's decision to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142.

This decision imposed a deadline on both the President and the Governor regarding the clearance of 10 bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which had moved forward without the Executive's approval. Dhankhar labelled it a case of "judicial overreach."

Describing the situation as unprecedented, Dhankhar stated, “We never bargained for democracy for this day. The President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner, and if not, the bills become law.”

In the ruling regarding the Tamil Nadu governor, the Supreme Court clarified that when a governor reserves a bill for the President under Article 201 of the Constitution, a decision must be made within three months.

This verdict criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor for significant delays in acting on state bills and emphasized that the President does not possess a “pocket veto,” requiring a timely decision on granting or denying assent.