India, May 15 -- President Droupadi Murmu has exercised a rare constitutional provision and sought the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on 14 questions to settle the law on whether the president and governors need to follow timelines to decide on state bills referred for consent when the Constitution does not prescribe it.

A May 13 (Tuesday) presidential reference listed these questions following the April 8 judgment that laid down a timeline for the president and governor to decide on bills. The questions relate to constitutional options before the governors and the president after a state government presents a bill for consent. A governor can reserve a bill for the president's consideration under the Constitution's Article 201.

A benc...