Introduction and About

  • In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court (SC) of India delivered in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu,2023, the SC has, for the first time, established a 3-month deadline.
  • This deadline is for the President to make decisions on Bills that are referred by the Governor, according to Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.

 

The Supreme Court’s Verdict on the President’s Role in State Bills

  • The interpretation of Article 201 of the Constitution was a significant part of this verdict.
  • This article mentions: “when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President shall either give his approval to the Bill or withhold approval from it."
  • The SC observed that Article 201 does not specify any particular timeline for Presidential assent. This can lead to delays, which can interrupt legislative procedures and put state Bills in ambiguous and uncertain suspension.  
  • The SC stressed that inaction breaches the constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness in the utilisation of power.

 

Time Limit and Guided Principles

  • The Supreme Court held that the President cannot exercise an “absolute veto” by delaying the assent indefinitely.
  • A decision must be made within a timeframe of three months, and any delay must be explained and communicated to the State.
  • Withholding assent must be based on sound and specific grounds, not performed arbitrarily.
  • If the President does not act within the specified time limit, States are enabled to file writ petitions to coerce a decision, seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the Court.

 

Role of Article 143 and Reference to Previous Commissions

  • The Court stated that as per Article 143, if a bill is reserved by the Governor on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the President should seek the Supreme Court’s opinion. 
  • Even though it is not compulsory, the reference to the SC in such instances possesses great persuasive value.
  • The SC clarified that the President is not constitutionally required to assent to a State Bill under Article 201, unlike the Governor. 
  • The Court cited the 2016 Office Memorandums provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which had suggested a three-month timeline for decisions on state bills reserved for the President. 
  • The Court also invoked the Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010)'s recommendations, both of which had recommended time-bound decisions on reserved Bills.