SC sets groundbreaking three-month deadline for Presidential decisions on Bills

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has for the first time set a clear three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills referred by Governors, emphasizing the need for timely action in a crucial aspect of India’s federal structure.

The decision comes in the wake of a controversial move by Tamil Nadu’s Governor RN Ravi, who reserved 10 Bills for the President’s consideration in November 2023, despite the state legislature having already reconsidered them.

The Court found this delay unlawful and asserted that such indecision, especially without sufficient justification, undermines the Constitution’s intent.

In a strong rebuke of prolonged inaction, the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated that the absence of a fixed timeframe under Article 201, which governs the Presidential assent to state Bills, had long been a point of contention.

Under the ruling, the President must now decide within three months of receiving a Bill from the Governor. Any delay beyond that period must be accompanied by a detailed explanation provided to the concerned state.

This judicial intervention carries significant weight as, for decades, Article 201 had no explicit deadline for the President’s decision on Bills reserved by the Governor.

While the Constitution gives the President the discretion to either grant or withhold assent to such Bills, the Court’s ruling establishes that such discretion should not result in indefinite delays that place legislative actions in a state of limbo.

Justice Pardiwala, writing for the bench, highlighted that while the President’s ‘consideration’ of a Bill could be complex, this should not serve as a justification for inaction.

The judgment draws attention to the principle that the exercise of constitutional powers must not be arbitrary. Prolonged delays in deciding on Bills, which represent the legislative will of the people, would keep these legislative outcomes in an “indefinite and uncertain state.”

The Supreme Court also referred to the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, which had previously recommended the establishment of timelines for the President’s decision on Bills to streamline the legislative process and avoid disputes between the Centre and States.

These Commissions had warned that lack of deadlines in the constitutional framework had contributed to tensions in Centre-State relations.

In the judgment, the Court noted that while it understood the need for thorough consideration, it reinforced that delay without sufficient reason was detrimental to the federal structure of the nation. “The President’s decision must not be arbitrary or capricious,” the bench declared.

Adding weight to its ruling, the Court referred to two key Office Memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016, which already outlined a three-month timeline for the decision on state Bills.

These guidelines, the Court noted, reflected the urgency and importance of such matters and were in line with the broader constitutional principle that both Governors and the President must exercise their powers responsibly and within reasonable timeframes.

The Court emphasized that just as Governors do not have absolute veto powers over Bills, neither does the President. If the President withholds assent, clear and sound reasons must be provided. This ruling ensures that neither the Governor nor the President can exercise unchecked authority in blocking or delaying state legislation without accountability.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant step toward ensuring that the legislative process remains timely and transparent, with constitutional authorities being held accountable for their actions.

By adopting the timeline set by the Ministry of Home Affairs and stressing the need for clear justification for any delay, the Court has reinforced the importance of federal cooperation and legislative efficacy in India’s complex polity.