The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark ruling with far-reaching implications for federalism and legislative process in the country. For the first time, the apex court has imposed a time limit on the President for deciding on bills referred by state governors under Article 201 of the Constitution.
🧾 Background: What Triggered the Ruling?
-
The case arose from Tamil Nadu, where Governor RN Ravi withheld assent to 10 bills passed by the DMK-led state government.
-
The Governor had sent the bills to the President for consideration under Article 200/201, effectively stalling them.
-
The state challenged this deliberate inaction as unconstitutional and undemocratic.
⚖️ What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
-
A two-judge bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the following key declarations:
📌 Decision Timeline Set:
-
The President must take a decision within 3 months of receiving a bill referred by a Governor under Article 201.
-
This marks the first time a judicial time-bound limit has been laid down for such executive action.
📌 Pocket Veto Not Permissible:
-
The President does not have a “pocket veto”—the power to sit on a bill indefinitely without action.
-
The bench stated: “Even where no time-limit is prescribed, powers must be exercised within a reasonable time.”
📌 Reasoning Mandatory:
-
If there is a delay beyond 3 months, the reasons must be recorded and communicated to the state government.
📌 Withholding of Assent is Justiciable:
-
The court ruled that if the President withholds assent without justification or fails to act, the state can challenge it in court.
-
This reinforces that executive discretion is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
🧑⚖️ Clarifying the President’s Role:
-
The court emphasized that the President is not above judicial scrutiny when acting on bills under Article 201.
-
If a bill’s constitutional validity is in question, the executive cannot make that call; only constitutional courts can.
-
It suggested such questions be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (which allows the President to seek the court’s advisory opinion).
🔍 Why It Matters:
-
This ruling is a strong message against executive overreach, especially by Governors and the Union Government.
-
It protects legislative autonomy of states and prevents politically motivated stalling of state bills.
-
It is particularly relevant in a time when Centre-State tensions are rising, with governors in several opposition-ruled states accused of blocking state legislation.
🏛️ The Bigger Picture:
-
By holding that the Governor’s and President’s inaction is judicially reviewable, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle of cooperative federalism.
-
The verdict is expected to set a precedent across India, especially in states like Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal, which have also faced delays in gubernatorial assent.
