The judgement comes just four days after the apex court cleared 10 bills from Tamil Nadu that had been reserved by Governor R N Ravi for presidential assent. The full 415-page judgement was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website late Friday night at 10:54 pm.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has for the first time laid down a specific timeline for the President to decide on bills referred by state governors, mandating a decision within three months from the date the reference is received.
The judgement comes just four days after the apex court cleared 10 bills from Tamil Nadu that had been reserved by Governor R N Ravi for presidential assent. The full 415-page judgement was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website late Friday night at 10:54 pm.
“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs…and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.
“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. The States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central government expeditiously,” the top court said.
The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, delivered the ruling on April 8 and invalidated the second round of reservation of the bills, terming the governor’s action “illegal, erroneous in law”.
Without mincing words, the bench asserted, “where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court”.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor has the authority to give or withhold assent or reserve a bill for presidential consideration.
“The Bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time, and the Governor having acted with clear lack of bona fides in reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President, immediately after the pronouncement of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab (supra), are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered.
“There is no expressly specified time-limit for the discharge of the functions by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution. Despite there being no prescribed time-limit, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action upon bills which are presented to him for assent and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State,” the bench said.
Reiterating the constitutional mandate, the court noted that the governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot reserve a bill for the President’s consideration a second time once it has been re-presented by the House.
The judgement also warned that failure to act within the stipulated timeframes would subject governors’ inaction to judicial scrutiny.
“In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one-month,” the court said.
“In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months.
“In case of reservation of bills for the consideration of the President contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor shall make such reservation within a maximum period of three months,” the bench said.
It further clarified that if a bill is re-submitted after being returned by the governor, assent must be granted “forthwith”, within a maximum of one month.
Rejecting the notion of indefinite delays, the bench stated, “There is no ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression ‘shall declare’ makes it mandatory for the President to make a choice between the two options available under the substantive part of Article 201, that is, to either grant assent or to withhold assent to a bill.
“The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily,” the bench said.
Using its plenary powers under Article 142, the court held that the bills re-enacted and presented to the Tamil Nadu governor are to be treated as if they have received assent.
The dispute arose when the Tamil Nadu government moved the top court in 2023, citing delays by the governor in giving assent to 12 bills, some dating back to 2020. On November 13, 2023, the governor declared he was withholding assent to 10 of those bills. In response, the state assembly re-enacted the same bills on November 18, which were subsequently reserved for presidential consideration.
To ensure uniform application, the court has directed that a copy of the judgement be sent to all high courts and principal secretaries to governors across the country.
This judgement is seen as a significant check on executive discretion and a move to reinforce constitutional accountability in legislative processes.
(With inputs from PTI)
