Significant Court Judgement

  • The Supreme Court (SC) of India, in a ground-breaking judgement dated 2023 in the case State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, has outlined a three-month timeframe for the President to determine on Bills referred by the Governor as per Article 201 of the Constitution.
  • This legal pronouncement is significant as Article 201 does not initially prescribe any specific timeline for Presidential assent, posing the risk of indefinite delays and impeding legislative processes at the state level.
  • The SC emphasises that the indifference to act timely infringes the constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness, leaving state bills in a state of limbo.

 

Clarity of Presidential Role in State Bills

  • In its verdict, the SC clarifies that the President cannot implement an "absolute veto" by continually deferring assent.
  • Decision by the President must be made within the stipulated three months, and any delay must be substantiated with logical reasons and communicated to the state.
  • The withholding of assent should not be arbitrary but should be based on substantive and specific grounds.
  • In circumstances where the President fails to comply within the given deadline, the States are entitled to file writ petitions to enforce a decision, by seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the Court.

 

Role of Supreme Court in Reserved Bills

  • The SC also underscored that under Article 143, if a bill is withheld by the Governor due to allegations of unconstitutionality, the President is recommended to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court.
  • While this is not obligatory, it carries substantial persuasive value and can help shape the decision of the President.
  • The court also elucidated that, unlike the Governor who is mandated to assent to a state bill if it is passed again after being sent back, the President is not constitutionally obliged to do so under Article 201.

 

Federal Governance and State Legislation

  • The SC verdict refers to the 2016 Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which prescribed a three-month timeline for decisions on state bills reserved for the President.
  • This interpretation on Article 201 does not only promote transparency, but it also safeguards against the possible misuse of executive powers in the legislative process.
  • The decision thus strengthens federal governance, empowering the States to question any undue delays and ensuring the principles of accountability are upheld in the Indian legislative process.

 

Past Relevant Judgements

  • The decision also lies within the context of previous landmark Supreme Court judgements, such as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) and Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1988), which emphasised the limitations and obligations of both the Governor and the President under judicial review.
  • Cases like R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) illustrated that both Presidential and Governer's powers must align with constitutional principles.
  • The legal verdicts collectively denote the importance of judicial review in regulating executive actions, ensuring constitutional limitations are respected.