President must decide on bills reserved by Governors within 3 months: Supreme Court

New Delhi: In the landmark judgment in the 'State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu' case, the Supreme Court has also set timelines for the President to act as per Article 201 of the Constitution on the Bills which the Governor has reserved for the President's assent. The court held that the President must take a decision within 3 months on the Bills reserved. In the judgment, the Court has also set timelines for Governor's actions on Bills under Article 200.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and S V N Bhatti issued a series of directives aimed at addressing the increasing friction in Centre–State relations due to prolonged delays in granting assent to State legislation.

“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received,” the court observed in paragraph 391 of the judgment. In case of delays beyond this timeline, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.

Importantly, the court asserted that the President does not have the power to indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill — a position similar to its earlier ruling regarding Governors. “Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts,” the bench stated.

The court made it clear that the President’s withholding of assent — or failure to act — is not immune from judicial review. If such inaction extends beyond the prescribed timeline or appears arbitrary or mala fide, the concerned State government can move the Supreme Court.

“The President is not an exception to the constitutional norm of accountability. Where inaction exceeds the prescribed limit, the State may seek a writ of mandamus,” the judgment said.

Underscoring the importance of transparency in a federal structure, the court said the President is under an obligation to declare and communicate the reasons for withholding assent. “The State must be properly informed of the reconsiderations or objections raised, allowing it an opportunity to amend or defend the Bill,” the court held.

It added that withholding assent without giving reasons may raise a presumption of lack of bona fides. In a broader suggestion to improve Centre–State coordination, the court recommended that State governments engage in pre-legislative consultation with the Centre before introducing Bills that may require Presidential assent. Similarly, the Union government was asked to respond to State legislation with due regard and expediency.

“This practice promotes transparency and helps avoid legal gridlocks that hamper public welfare,” the bench observed.

The court further held that if a Bill is reserved for the President on grounds of unconstitutionality, the President should consider referring the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for its opinion.

“When a Bill raises constitutional questions that threaten the foundation of representative democracy, the appropriate constitutional forum for such examination is the judiciary,” the court said. This historic verdict is expected to significantly curb executive delays and ensure smoother legislative functioning in India’s federal framework.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)