Introduction and Background

  • The Supreme Court (SC) of India has issued a first-time legal guideline setting a three-month deadline for the President to make a decision on Bills referred by the Governor.
  • This ruling was ruled in response to the legal case “State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu,2023."

 

What is Article 201 and Its Relevance?

  • Article 201 refers to the constitutional provision which states that when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the consideration of the President, the President should either give assent to the Bill or withhold it.
  • However, Article 201 does not set a specific timeline for the President to make this decision, leading to potential prolonged legislative processes.

 

Verdict from the Supreme Court

  • The SC emphasised that inaction breaches the constitutional principle of non-arbitrariness in the application of power.
  • The President cannot exercise an "absolute veto" by indefinitely delaying assent, according to the Court.
  • The Court ruled that a decision should be made within three months, and any delay beyond this must be explained and communicated to the respective State.
  • If the President fails to act within this set deadline, States can file writ petitions pushing for a decision, by seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the Court.

 

Considerations on Cases of Unconstitutionality

  • The SC mentioned that under Article 143, when a bill is reserved by the Governor on grounds of unconstitutionality, the President should seek the Supreme Court's opinion.
  • Although this is not mandatory, the SC's opinion carries a high persuasive value in such cases.

 

Exceptional Case Consideration Under Article 201

  • Unlike the Governor, the President is not constitutionally obligated to assent to a State Bill if it is returned after being passed.
  • Article 201 is applied in exceptional cases where legislation at a state-level could have national implications.

 

References Used in Supreme Court's Decision

  • The SC referred to the 2016 Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs which suggested a three-month timeline for decisions on state bills that are reserved for the President's decision.
  • In addition, the Court acknowledged the recommendations made by the Sarkaria Commission in 1988 and the Punchhi Commission in 2010, both of which advocated for decisions on reserved Bills to be made within a specific timeframe.