President Murmu has sought the Supreme Court’s opinion on the validity of its recent verdict that set deadlines for governors and the President to decide on state bills. Questioning the constitutional basis for such timelines, she invoked Article 143(1) to address concerns about the court’s overreach and the concept of deemed assent, deeming it alien to the constitutional framework.
The recent verdict by the Supreme Court setting deadlines for governors and the President to decide on state bills has certainly stirred a significant debate. President Murmu’s decision to seek the court’s opinion through Article 143(1) raises important questions about the constitutional validity of such timelines. Her concerns about the court potentially overstepping its bounds and the idea of deemed assent being alien to the constitutional framework are thought-provoking. It’s crucial to balance the judiciary’s role with the principles laid out in the Constitution to avoid any overreach. While efficiency in decision-making is essential, it shouldn’t come at the cost of constitutional integrity. How do you think this will impact the relationship between the judiciary and the executive in the long run? This is a delicate matter that deserves careful consideration and dialogue.