In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, stated that the President must make a decision within three months on bills referred by state governors. The ruling was delivered on Tuesday in connection with the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold assent to several pending bills, and the order was made public on Friday.
What the Supreme court said on President’s powers regarding bills from state legislature
While pronouncing the verdict, a bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan emphasized that the President’s actions under Article 201 of the Constitution are subject to judicial review.
Article 201 states that when a bill is reserved by a governor for the President’s consideration, the President must either assent to it or withhold assent. However, the Constitution does not specify a time limit for this decision.
The Supreme Court stressed that the President does not possess a “pocket veto” and must act within a reasonable timeframe. “It is a well-settled legal principle that even in the absence of an explicit time limit, statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable period,” the bench observed. “This principle equally applies to the President’s powers under Article 201.”
ALSO READ: SC Bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna to hear 10 petitions challenging the Waqf Act on April 16
The court further held that if a decision is delayed beyond the three-month period, valid reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned state. “We therefore hold that the President must take a decision on bills reserved by a governor within three months from the date the reference is received,” the bench concluded.
The verdict holds importance as several opposition-ruled states such as Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal have approached the apex court against delay in giving assent by governors to bills passed by the respective state assemblies.
Supreme Court’s landmark judgement on Tamil Nadu governor last week
This development comes as Supreme Court had passed a landmark judgement last week, where it termed Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s reservation of 10 bills for President’s assent as “illegal and liable to be set aside”. The verdict was pronounced by the same bench that pronounced today’s ruling comprising of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.
While pronouncing this judgement the court had said that a Governor must be a “friend, guide and philosopher” to the State, not a hindrance. ”A Governor is envisaged as a sagacious counsellor, someone who can pour oil on troubled waters. What unfolded in the current litigation was quite the opposite”.
