In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has, for the first time, prescribed a time frame of three months for the President to decide on state bills reserved for consideration by the Governor. This timeline begins from the date the reference is received.
The judgement, spanning 415 pages, was uploaded on the apex court&rsquo;s website at 10.54 pm on Friday, four days after the court cleared ten bills that had been stalled by Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi and reserved for the President&rsquo;s consideration.&nbsp;
The ruling also established specific timelines for all Governors in handling bills passed by state legislatures.
&ldquo;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,&rdquo; the Supreme Court stated.&nbsp;
&ldquo;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.&rdquo;
The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, on April 8 ruled that the Governor&rsquo;s act of reserving the ten bills for Presidential consideration in the second round was &ldquo;illegal&rdquo; and &ldquo;erroneous in law&rdquo;.&nbsp;
The court noted that where a Governor reserves a bill for the President and the President withholds assent, the state government retains the right to challenge such action before the court.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor may assent to, withhold assent from, or reserve a bill for the President&rsquo;s consideration.&nbsp;
The court observed that, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
Although Article 200 does not specify a timeline, the bench emphasised that it cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite delay. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; the judgement read.
The court reinforced that the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and once a bill is returned and passed again by the House, it cannot be reserved for the President&rsquo;s consideration. Copies of the judgement have been directed to be sent to all high courts and the principal secretaries to the Governors of all states.
Establishing firm deadlines, the court held that failure to adhere to these timeframes would render the inaction of Governors subject to judicial scrutiny. &ldquo;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,&rdquo; the bench stated.
The court further specified that if a bill is withheld contrary to ministerial advice, the Governor must return it with a message within three months. If a bill is reserved against such advice, the Governor must do so within three months. For bills presented after reconsideration, the Governor must grant assent forthwith, with a maximum delay of one month.
Rejecting any notion of arbitrary executive delay, the bench asserted, &ldquo;The Governor couldn't sit over bills and adopt the concept of &lsquo;absolute veto&rsquo; or &lsquo;pocket veto&rsquo;. There is no &lsquo;pocket veto&rsquo; or &lsquo;absolute veto&rsquo; available to the President in discharge of his functions under Article 201. The use of the expression &lsquo;shall declare&rsquo; 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.&rdquo;
Exercising its powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court declared the bills re-presented to the Tamil Nadu Governor as deemed to have been passed.&nbsp;
The dispute arose after the Tamil Nadu government moved the court in 2023, citing a delay in assent to twelve bills, one of which had been pending since 2020.
On November 13, 2023, the Governor announced that he was withholding assent to 10 bills. In response, the state&rsquo;s legislative assembly convened a special session on November 18, 2023 and re-enacted the same bills, some of which were later reserved for Presidential consideration.
&nbsp;
<ins><a href="https://www.whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb34ERXCnA7lrMp57S3N" target="_blank" rel="noopener" aria-label="content">Follow the&nbsp;Benefit News&nbsp;channel on WhatsApp</a></ins>

Supreme Court of India (Left) and President Droupadi Murmu (Right)

Supreme Court mandates President to decide on state bills within 3 months of Governor's referral

SC Sets 3-Month Limit for Prez Decision on Bills

Supreme Court mandates President to decide on state bills within 3 months of Governor's referral

April 12, 2025 | 18:38 IST