SC to Centre: The President can’t sit on bills from governors indefinitely, must decide in 3 months

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has directed that the President must take a decision within three months on any state bill referred by a governor, as reported by the Live law. The ruling came as the court struck down Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to ten bills passed by the DMK-led government, declaring his actions unlawful.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan made the order public on Friday, following the verdict delivered earlier this week. The court made it clear that the powers exercised by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution are not beyond judicial scrutiny.

“The position of law is settled that even where no time limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under Article 201 cannot be said to be immune to this general principle of law,” the court said.

As per Article 201, when a governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration, the President must either assent to it or withhold assent. However, the Constitution does not specify a timeline for this action.

To address this gap, the court laid down a binding deadline. “We 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 court stated.

The bench also held that any delay beyond the three-month limit would require reasons to be recorded and communicated to the concerned state. If there is no action within that time frame, the aggrieved state may approach the courts.

Importantly, the court said the President’s decision to withhold assent can be challenged, particularly if it relates to questions of constitutionality. In such cases, the court clarified that the executive cannot assume the role of a constitutional court.

“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill,” the bench noted.