Saurabh Mukherjee
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has for the first time set a timeline for the President of India to decide on state Bills reserved for assent.
The court directed that the President must take a decision within three months of receiving such Bills, and any delay beyond this must be justified with recorded reasons conveyed to the concerned state.
The decision, part of the court's April 8 verdict made public on Friday, April 11, came in response to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 Bills for the President’s consideration in November 2023, even after the state Assembly had re-passed them.
Declaring the Governor’s action "illegal and erroneous," the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasized that courts are empowered to intervene when constitutional authorities delay their responsibilities unreasonably.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, the President can either grant or withhold assent to a Bill reserved by a Governor. However, until now, no timeline was specified for this process. The apex court acknowledged this legal vacuum, stating that prolonged delays in Presidential assent undermine the legislative authority of elected state governments and disrupt the federal structure of governance.
Citing recommendations from the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007), both of which advocated time-bound procedures for such matters, the court noted that the absence of a deadline had strained Centre-State relations. It also referred to Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines issued in February 2016, which called for Presidential decisions on state Bills within three months, and urgent ordinances within three weeks.
The court said the absence of a timeline in Article 201 cannot be interpreted as granting indefinite discretion to the President.
“Delay on part of the President in deciding a reference under Article 201, without any justification or necessity, would fall foul of the basic constitutional principle that the exercise of a power must not be arbitrary and capricious. The implications of inaction being of a serious nature and detrimental to the federal fabric of the Constitution, there should be no scope for unnecessary delay on part of the President under Article 201 as well,” the bench observed.
It further clarified that the President, like the Governor, does not possess an absolute veto. A decision to withhold assent must be backed by “sound and specific reasons.”
“While we have elaborated that the Governor does not hold the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any Bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the President under Article 201 as well. The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts,” the court said.
While the Governor is constitutionally obligated to assent to a Bill reconsidered and re-passed by the state legislature, no such compulsion exists for the President.
“The only exception that has been carved out by the Constitution as regards the exercise of powers by the Governor and that of the President under Article(s) 200 and 201 of the Constitution is that in the former, the Governor once having withheld assent from a Bill would then be bound to assent upon the reconsideration of such Bill, whereas in the latter no such compulsion is constitutionally imagined for the President, owing to the very fact that the grant or withholding of assent in terms of Article 201 is not the ordinary law-making procedure so far as the States are concerned,” the judgement said.
Nonetheless, the court asserted that both offices must function with transparency and accountability.
The ruling reiterated that state governments must also cooperate with the Centre, promptly addressing queries and incorporating suggestions where necessary. In closing, the court underscored that constitutional functionaries cannot exercise power arbitrarily or capriciously, reaffirming judicial oversight as a safeguard against such inaction.
The court directed that the President must take a decision within three months of receiving such Bills, and any delay beyond this must be justified with recorded reasons conveyed to the concerned state.
The decision, part of the court's April 8 verdict made public on Friday, April 11, came in response to Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 Bills for the President’s consideration in November 2023, even after the state Assembly had re-passed them.
Declaring the Governor’s action "illegal and erroneous," the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasized that courts are empowered to intervene when constitutional authorities delay their responsibilities unreasonably.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, the President can either grant or withhold assent to a Bill reserved by a Governor. However, until now, no timeline was specified for this process. The apex court acknowledged this legal vacuum, stating that prolonged delays in Presidential assent undermine the legislative authority of elected state governments and disrupt the federal structure of governance.
Citing recommendations from the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007), both of which advocated time-bound procedures for such matters, the court noted that the absence of a deadline had strained Centre-State relations. It also referred to Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines issued in February 2016, which called for Presidential decisions on state Bills within three months, and urgent ordinances within three weeks.
The court said the absence of a timeline in Article 201 cannot be interpreted as granting indefinite discretion to the President.
“Delay on part of the President in deciding a reference under Article 201, without any justification or necessity, would fall foul of the basic constitutional principle that the exercise of a power must not be arbitrary and capricious. The implications of inaction being of a serious nature and detrimental to the federal fabric of the Constitution, there should be no scope for unnecessary delay on part of the President under Article 201 as well,” the bench observed.
It further clarified that the President, like the Governor, does not possess an absolute veto. A decision to withhold assent must be backed by “sound and specific reasons.”
“While we have elaborated that the Governor does not hold the power to exercise ‘absolute veto’ on any Bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the President under Article 201 as well. The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts,” the court said.
While the Governor is constitutionally obligated to assent to a Bill reconsidered and re-passed by the state legislature, no such compulsion exists for the President.
“The only exception that has been carved out by the Constitution as regards the exercise of powers by the Governor and that of the President under Article(s) 200 and 201 of the Constitution is that in the former, the Governor once having withheld assent from a Bill would then be bound to assent upon the reconsideration of such Bill, whereas in the latter no such compulsion is constitutionally imagined for the President, owing to the very fact that the grant or withholding of assent in terms of Article 201 is not the ordinary law-making procedure so far as the States are concerned,” the judgement said.
Nonetheless, the court asserted that both offices must function with transparency and accountability.
The ruling reiterated that state governments must also cooperate with the Centre, promptly addressing queries and incorporating suggestions where necessary. In closing, the court underscored that constitutional functionaries cannot exercise power arbitrarily or capriciously, reaffirming judicial oversight as a safeguard against such inaction.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment