President Bill Decision Deadline Set by Supreme Court

Aakhir Tak – In Shorts

• Supreme Court sets a historic 3-month President Bill Decision Deadline.
• This applies to bills referred by state Governors for assent.
• The President’s powers under Article 201 are subject to judicial review.
• Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold bill assent was overturned.
• Courts, not the executive, should assess a bill’s constitutional validity.

Aakhir Tak – In Depth

Supreme Court’s Landmark Directive

In a significant first, the Supreme Court of India has established a crucial timeline. The court mandated a President Bill Decision Deadline. The President must now decide on bills referred by state Governors within three months. This ruling emerged while the court addressed the Tamil Nadu Governor’s actions. Specifically, it set aside the Governor’s decision to withhold assent on several pending bills. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the verdict. The order became public knowledge on Friday.

Article 201 and Presidential Discretion

Article 201 of the Constitution deals with bills reserved by a Governor for the President’s consideration. Under this article, the President declares assent or withholds it. However, the Constitution previously specified no timeframe for this decision. The Supreme Court clarified this ambiguity. It stated the President does not possess a “pocket veto” in this scenario. Assent must either be granted or withheld explicitly. The court emphasized a settled legal principle. Even without a statutory time limit, power should be exercised within a reasonable time. Presidential powers under Article 201 are not immune to this general principle.

The Three-Month Mandate

The two-judge bench provided a clear directive. “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,” the top court stated. This President Bill Decision Deadline starts from the date the reference is received. Furthermore, the court added a layer of accountability. If a delay occurs beyond this three-month period, appropriate reasons must be recorded. These reasons must also be conveyed to the concerned state government. This ruling significantly impacts the timeline for bill assent.

Judicial Review Applicability

The Supreme Court strongly affirmed a key point. The discharge of functions by the President under Article 201 is amenable to judicial review. This means if the President fails to act within the mandated timeframe, affected states have recourse. They can approach the courts to seek intervention. This provision empowers states against potential indefinite delays in the legislative process. It ensures accountability in exercising constitutional powers.

Constitutional Validity: Role of Judiciary

The court also addressed situations where bills are reserved due to constitutional validity questions. It underlined that the executive branch should not assume the role of the judiciary. Such complex legal questions regarding a bill’s constitutionality should be referred elsewhere. Specifically, they should go to the Supreme Court under Article 143 (President’s power to consult the Supreme Court). “Only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill,” the court asserted. This clarifies the separation of powers concerning legal interpretations.

The Tamil Nadu Context

This significant ruling stemmed from the Tamil Nadu case. Governor RN Ravi had withheld assent to 10 bills passed by the state’s DMK government. The Supreme Court explicitly ruled this action illegal. While setting deadlines for Governors as well, the court noted inaction could trigger judicial review. This specific case highlighted the practical issues arising from undefined timelines. Consequently, the court’s decision sets a precedent for future interactions between Governors, the President, and state legislatures regarding bill assent.

Aakhir Tak – Key Takeaways to Remember

• A mandatory 3-month President Bill Decision Deadline now exists.
• This applies specifically to bills reserved by Governors under Article 201.
• Presidential action, or inaction, on these bills is subject to judicial review.
• The Tamil Nadu Governor’s withholding of bill assent was declared illegal.
• Constitutional validity assessment is the domain of courts, not the executive.

Aakhir Tak Editor-in-Chief

See Full Bio