The Supreme Court has directed that the President of India must take a decision on bills referred to her by a state Governor within three months of receiving them, stating that failure to do so without valid reason would amount to obstructing the state's legislative machinery.
In its detailed 415-page ruling on 8 April, a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan ruled on a matter concerning ten bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, which had been withheld and referred to the President by Governor R.N. Ravi. The court cleared all ten bills and issued broader directives for the timely processing of such legislation.
Quoting a timeline laid down by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the bench noted: “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.”
The top court further said that if there is a delay beyond the three-month window, “appropriate reasons should be provided to the state government.”
The Constitution, under Article 200, grants Governors the power to assent to, withhold, or reserve bills for the President’s consideration. However, the court observed that the Constitution does not lay down a strict time limit for the process. It held that unduly delaying such decisions amounts to a “roadblock in the law-making machinery of the state.”
Addressing the issue of delayed gubernatorial action, the court clarified that such inaction could be reviewed by the judiciary. “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,” the court said.
“In case of withholding of assent contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the Governor must return the bill together with a message within a maximum period of three months,” it added.
The apex court further emphasised that Governors must not misuse their authority by indefinitely withholding bills. The bench rejected the practice of a “pocket veto”, stating that Governors do not have the constitutional mandate to adopt an “absolute veto.”
The ruling comes at a time when several Opposition-ruled states have clashed with Governors over the delay or refusal to grant assent to bills passed by elected state legislatures. The Tamil Nadu government had approached the court after Governor Ravi stalled multiple bills, including those related to higher education and governance reforms.
The court’s ruling is expected to have a bearing on similar confrontations in states like Kerala and Punjab, where Governors have delayed action on key pieces of legislation.
Follow us
