CJI BR Gavais tenure begins amid judiciary-executive clash over constitutional boundaries

PTC Web Desk: As tensions grow between the judiciary and the executive, newly appointed Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice BR Gavai is set to confront several constitutional challenges at the very start of his tenure. Sworn in on Wednesday as the country's highest-ranking judicial officer, Justice Gavai must first address a critical presidential reference—whether the Supreme Court has the authority to impose deadlines on the Governor and the President for giving assent to legislative Bills.

This matter arises in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, where a two-judge Bench suggested a timeline for gubernatorial and presidential decisions. Reacting to the judgment, President Droupadi Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking formal advice from the top court. She questioned, "How can the Supreme Court set a timeline when the Constitution does not explicitly provide one?"

In response, Chief Justice Gavai is expected to constitute a Constitution Bench—comprising at least five judges—to deliberate on 14 pointed constitutional questions posed by the President. These questions, submitted just a day before Justice Gavai assumed office, revolve around the powers and limitations of both the Governor and the President concerning legislative processes and the judiciary's role in reviewing these decisions.

The 14 Constitutional Questions Referred:

What options does a Governor have when a Bill is presented under Article 200?

Is the Governor required to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in such cases?

Can the Governor's discretion under Article 200 be subject to judicial scrutiny?

Does Article 361 completely bar courts from reviewing the Governor’s actions under Article 200?

Can courts prescribe a time limit or procedure for Governors under Article 200 in the absence of constitutional guidelines?

Is the President’s discretion under Article 201 also open to judicial review?

Can judicial timelines be imposed on the President under Article 201?

Is the President constitutionally obligated to consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved by a Governor?

Can court intervention occur before a Bill becomes law, and are such decisions justiciable at that stage?

Can Article 142 be used to override or replace constitutional procedures followed by the President or Governor?

Is a State law considered in effect before the Governor’s formal assent under Article 200?

Is it mandatory for Benches to refer substantial constitutional questions to a five-judge bench as per Article 145(3)?

Do Article 142 powers only cover procedural issues, or can they override existing laws?

Is Article 131 the sole route for the Supreme Court to resolve Centre-State disputes?

This legal development follows Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar’s public criticism of the judiciary, accusing the apex court of "judicial overreach" after it cleared 10 Tamil Nadu Assembly Bills without Executive approval using Article 142 powers.

On April 12, the Supreme Court had, in a landmark ruling, directed that the President must decide on Bills sent for assent within three months, ruling that such executive delays are open to judicial review—an unprecedented move that has now stirred intense constitutional debate.