President questions if Supreme Court can impose deadlines on President, Governor for bill assent

In a rare move, the President of India Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution of India has sent a reference to the Supreme Court following its recent ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures..Article 143(1) of the Constitution allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion in matters of legal and public importance. The top court will now have to set up a Constitution Bench for answering the reference. In particular, President Murmu has questioned Supreme Court's direction that there would be a deemed consent in case of failure to abide by the timeline set by it for grant assent to the bills.The concept of a deemed assent of the President and the Governor is alien to the constitutional scheme and fundamental circumscribes the power of the President and the Governor, the reference states..President Murmu has sent 14 pointed questions to the apex court for its opinion, while emphasizing that that Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which govern the process of assent to bills by Governors and the President, do not prescribe any deadlines or specific procedural requirements..The 14 questions posed by the President of India: 1. What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?2. Is the Governor bound by the aid & advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?3. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?4. Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to the judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?5. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit, and the manner of exercise of powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the Governor?6. Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?7. In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?8. In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the Governor reserves a Bill for the President's assent or otherwise?9. Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?10. Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President / Governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?11. Is a law made by the State legislature a law in force without the assent of the Governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?12. In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this Hon'ble Court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five Judges?13. Do the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions /passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?14. Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union Government and the State Governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?.Why Supreme Court said its timelines for Governors to act on bills don't amount to amending Constitution.In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court in April prescribed a timeline within which a Governor must act on the bills presented to him by the state legislatures, ruling that failure to adhere to this timeline would be subject to judicial review by the courts.The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that though no time-limit has been prescribed under Article 200, the provision cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action when the bills are presented to him for assent..In the ruling, the top court also said that the discharge of functions by the President under Article 201 are amenable to judicial review.The Court said that the President is required to take a decision on the bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. .The judgement passed in a case filed by Tamil Nadu government had been criticized by many including the Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar."There is a directive to the President by a recent judgement. Where are we heading? What is happening in the country? We have to be extremely sensitive. It is not a question of someone filing a review or not. We never bargained for democracy for this day. President being called upon to decide in a time-bound manner and if not, it becomes law. So we have judges who will legislate, who will perform executive functions, who will act as super Parliament and absolutely have no accountability because law of the land does not apply to them," he had said while commenting on the ruling.