New Delhi (PTI): President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict that fixed timelines for governors and the President to act on bills passed by state assemblies.

Exercising her power under the rarely used Article 143 (1), President Murmu said in the present circumstances, it appears that the following questions of law have arisen and they are of such nature and public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court of India thereon.

Article 143 (1) of the Constitution deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.

The provision says, "If at any time it appears to the President that a question of law or fact has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to that Court for consideration and the Court may, after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon".

The questions posed by the President are:

* What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

* Is the governor bound by the aid and 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?

* Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

* Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

* 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?

* Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

* In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this 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?

* ... (Are) 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?

* 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?

The Supreme Court's April 8 verdict set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that a governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.

It said the state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the President withholds assent to a bill sent by a governor for consideration.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said reserving a bill on grounds such as "personal dissatisfaction of the governor, political expediency or any other extraneous or irrelevant considerations" is strictly impermissible by the Constitution and would be liable to be set aside forthwith on that ground alone.