The President’s Reference to the President of the RA Pathi Murmu – Will the Supreme Court’s ‘nuclear missile’ kill the President Murmu’s ‘Security System’? .

The Supreme Court recently launched a surgical strike on the rights of the bills by the President and the Governor. In fact, under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has made a new arrangement for approval. Under this, it is necessary to cross the president and the governors within a certain time. It is obvious that this is a major attack on the rights of the legislature. That is why Vice President Jagdeep Tharangar calls the article 142 as ‘nuclear missile’. Tarangar says this article is 24×7 available nuclear weapons against democratic forces. It is obvious that a rudeness should be against this order of the Supreme Court.

President Thupadi Murmu sent to the Supreme Court on May 15 under the President’s Receipt (Article 143 (1) of the Constitution). The decision of the president is considered relevant in response to the Supreme Court beyond its limits in the political corridors. The consent gives the authority to intervene in the administration and legislative sector. This weakens the principle of dividing the power of the Constitution, as the court disrupts power at the discretion of the court.

1-The only right of the president to prevent the power of the powerful prime minister to be a dictator, wants to run the knife on it.

The Supreme Court has organized the consent of the consent not to affect the rights and laws of opposition governments in the country. This feature of the Supreme Court is important to many such complaints that the rights of the state, which were ruled by the opposition party to enact laws. In some states where the NDA government is not, the governors have taken their blessings in some important laws. But there is another feature of the currency. The only right to the president is that powerful governments are also afraid. If this right is over, the first and the Prime Minister will stop giving importance to the governor and the president.

The dispute between the country’s first President Rajendra Prasad and the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on the Hindu Code Bill are well known. Similarly, during the tenure of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the controversy between the then President Gianni Jail Singh on the Post Office Bill received a lot of debates. It is obvious that this right of the Supreme Court cannot deny the big difference in the rights of the president and governors. This right of the president prevents the more powerful prime ministers from being a dictator in India.

2. What is the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court?

First go in the backdrop of controversy. In the root of controversy, the Tamil Nadu government and Governor R.N. Ravi is also important. The Tamil Nadu government has complained that the governor has improperly pending the 10 bills passed by the Legislature or sent to the President. These bills include issues relating to education, administrative reforms and social welfare.

The government misused it (the bill stopped indefinitely) and filed a petition in the Supreme Court. On April 8, 2025, Justice J.P. Bardiwala and Justice R. The Supreme Court bench of Mahadevan gave a historical judgment. Under Article 200, the court ordered that the governor take a decision at the appropriate time – or be recognized, sent back to the president or sent to the President.

If the legislature passes again, the governor must approve within a month. Similarly, if the governor sends the bill to the President, the President has been ordered under the 201 article that the president will have to make a decision within three months.

The court said that the pocket veto is unconstitutional because of the wishes of the legislature. The bill will be acknowledged that if the president or the governor does not make decisions within the deadline, it is approved. The court said that the work of the President and the Governor was subject to the judiciary review and that if the bill was abused, the state governments could go directly to the Supreme Court.

3. The President’s Reference to the President

On May 2025, President Drabadi Murmu sought a formal opinion from the Supreme Court under 143 (1) of the Constitution. This was a rare step because section 143 (1) is used only when the strict constitutional question arises. However, Pranab Mukherjee (2012) before Murmu, APJ. Abdul Kalam (2005, 2006) and Shankar Dayal Sharma (1993) have used this right in R Venkatarman (1988), Zakir Hussein (1964) and Rajendra Prasad (1950s). But Murmu’s reference is part of the historical debate on the intervention of the administrator of the Supreme Court. The President has said that the Supreme Court’s decision is to occupy the constitutional values ​​and arrangements and constitutional boundaries.

The president’s key questions:

Can a deadline for the Governor and the President under Section 200 and 201, whereas there is no such organization in the Constitution?

Do you have powers at the discretion of the President and the Governor under the judicial review?

When nothing is mentioned in the Constitution, the concept of approval is the concept of constitution?

Can the Supreme Court amend or cancel the constitutional powers of the administrator under Article 142?

Is Section 32 (fundamental rights) misuse of section 131 (central-state conflicts)?

Does the Supreme Court weaken the separation of federal structure and powers?

According to President Murmu, Article 200 and 201 gives freedom to decide the bills, and no time limit in the Constitution has been set. The concept of considered consent is not in the Constitution and threatens the administrator’s autonomy. The president sees it as a constitutional crisis.

4- How did the Supreme Court cross the limits? Because the approval is at risk of the constitutional crisis

The concept of consulted consent is at risk of creating a constitutional crisis, as it confronts the basic structures of the constitution, the division of powers and the federal structure. Under this view, if the President or the Governor does not make decisions on the bill, which is set by the Legislature (three months for the President, one month for the Governor), the bill will be considered automatically approval.

The president and the governors have been given the independence to accept, review or stop the bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. No deadline has been set up for the approval of the bills. The consent is not in the Constitution, and the implementation of it is like adding a new condition in the constitutional structure, which is only possible by amendment by Parliament. This weakens the administrator’s autonomy.

The approval was implemented under Article 142 of the Supreme Court, which gives the judiciary power to intervene in the administration and legislative sector. This weakens the policy of dividing power, as the court disrupts power at the discretion of the administration. The president and the governor maintain central-state balance in the federal structure. The consent of the consent may automatically accept the controversial or non-constitutional bill (such as national security or central-state relations), which will weaken the federal structure.