‘President was not heard’: Attorney General flags omission in SC verdict on Bill assent timeline

Raising a significant constitutional red flag, Attorney General R Venkataramani on April 12 expressed concern over the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict that mandated a three-month deadline for the President to act on Bills reserved by the Governor — asserting that the President was not heard before the ruling.

“The President was not heard. The President should have been heard (before the court decided on her powers under the Constitution).” Venkataramani was quoted as saying by Indian Express.

He emphasized further, “The President was not in the picture at all.”

The AG's remarks spotlight a critical procedural omission, as the judgment directly addressed the powers of the President under Article 201 of the Constitution without presidential representation in court.

Venkataramani, who made submissions on gubernatorial powers during the hearing, said no decision had been made yet on whether the government would seek a review of the ruling by the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan.

In contrast, former Attorney General K K Venugopal supported the Supreme Court’s approach. “The SC was absolutely right in putting the President and the Governor on the same pedestal when it involves the legislative process,” he said, explaining that Article 201 flows directly from the Governor’s action under Article 200.

“In fact, while the Governor has discretion to refer Bills, the President has no such power and must act on the aid and advice of the Cabinet,” he added.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who represented the Tamil Nadu government in the case, concurred that the President’s role was central to the matter.

“The issue very much involved Article 201. The Governor had reserved Bills for the President’s consideration after they were re-passed by the legislature, and while the President approved three, seven Bills remained undecided,” he said.

Dwivedi acknowledged that although the President was not a party to the proceedings, the Attorney General was issued notice. “Once the court held that the Governor had no discretion on re-passed Bills and that the reservation itself was ultra vires, the actions at the President’s end became irrelevant,” he argued. “In that context, it wasn’t necessary to hear the President.”

This divergence in views reveals the constitutional complexity stirred by the Supreme Court’s directive, which for the first time sets timelines for both the Governor and the President on legislative decisions. In its landmark ruling, the Court held that the President must decide within three months on any Bill reserved by the Governor, based on internal Home Ministry guidelines.

“If the President exhibits inaction beyond the time-limit... it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus,” the Court stated in paragraph 391 of its ruling.

However, issuing a writ of mandamus against the President is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive. Article 361 of the Constitution shields the President and Governors from court accountability for their official duties.

Normally, the Union Home Ministry or the Governor’s Secretary is notified in such cases — not the Head of State directly.

A senior government law officer warned the ruling might disrupt the balance of constitutional powers. “One organ of the State is setting timelines for another to exercise constitutional authority. This breaches constitutional comity,” the officer said.

The ruling now sets the stage for a possible review or clarification—one that may redefine how the highest constitutional offices engage with judicial mandates in legislative processes.