In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, laid down a clear timeline for the President of India to decide on bills reserved for her consideration by state governors. The court directed that such decisions must be made within three months from the date the reference is received from the Governor.
This significant ruling came just four days after the apex court cleared ten bills from Tamil Nadu, which had been withheld by Governor R.N. Ravi and reserved for presidential assent. The court also established strict timelines for governors to act on bills passed by state assemblies, addressing growing concerns over delays that could stall the law-making process.
The judgment, spanning 415 pages, was uploaded late Friday night on the Supreme Court’s website.
Citing guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the bench stated:
“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry… The President is required to take a decision on bills reserved for consideration within three months from the date the reference is received.”
If a delay beyond this period occurs, the Court ruled, valid reasons must be recorded and shared with the concerned state government. The judgment also emphasized that state governments must cooperate by providing timely responses to any queries raised and carefully consider any suggestions made by the Centre.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the ruling on April 8, setting aside Governor Ravi’s reservation of the 10 Tamil Nadu bills in what the court described as the “second round” of consideration. The court ruled the governor’s action was both legally flawed and lacking in good faith.
Addressing the broader constitutional context, the court noted that under Article 200, a governor may grant assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration. However, the judges stressed that the absence of a specific timeline does not give governors the freedom to indefinitely delay action on bills, effectively paralyzing the state legislative process.
The court added:
“Despite no expressly specified time-limit under Article 200, it cannot be interpreted in a way that allows the Governor to indefinitely delay action on bills presented for assent.”
Further, the court clarified that once a bill is returned to the state assembly for reconsideration and re-passed, the governor is constitutionally obliged to grant assent and cannot reserve it for the President again.
The judgment also firmly rejected the notion of a “pocket veto” or “absolute veto” — where the President or Governor could indefinitely withhold action without explanation. The court emphasized:
“The expression ‘shall declare’ under Article 201 mandates the President to make a clear decision, either to assent or to withhold assent. Arbitrary delay is not permissible under the constitutional framework.”
In addition, the court instructed that copies of the judgment be circulated to all High Courts and the principal secretaries to the governors of every state.
To prevent future delays, the court set clear timelines for all constitutional authorities involved:
- If the Governor chooses to withhold assent or reserve a bill for the President, this must be done “forthwith,” and in no case should it take longer than one month.
- If the Governor withholds assent against the advice of the State Council of Ministers, the bill must be returned with reasons within three months.
- If the Governor reserves the bill for the President contrary to the State Council’s advice, the reservation must be made within three months.
- Once a bill is re-passed by the legislature and presented again to the Governor, assent must be granted within one month.
The ruling is a direct consequence of a long-running dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and the Governor over delays in granting assent to bills passed by the state assembly. Frustrated by what it saw as deliberate stalling, the Tamil Nadu government had approached the Supreme Court in 2023, pointing out that 12 bills — including one pending since 2020 — were stuck with the Governor.
On November 13, 2023, Governor Ravi announced that he was withholding assent to 10 of these bills. In response, the state assembly reconvened a special session and passed the same bills again on November 18. Even after re-passage, several of these bills were once more reserved for presidential consideration, which the court has now deemed unlawful.
This ruling is being seen as a strong reaffirmation of constitutional balance, ensuring neither governors nor the President can unduly delay the legislative process, thereby upholding the democratic will of state assemblies.