Last Updated:
The Supreme Court ruled that if the President takes more than three months to decide on a bill, they must provide valid reasons for the delay and communicate them to the state.
Supreme Court of India. (File)
The Supreme Court ruled that the President must decide on bills referred by governors within three months. This landmark decision came after the court overturned the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold approval for pending bills. The order was made public on Friday.
While delivering the verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the discharge of functions by the President under Article 201 was amenable to judicial review.
According to Article 201, when a governor reserves a bill, the President can either approve or reject it. However, the Constitution doesn’t specify a timeframe for this decision.
The Supreme Court underscored that the President does not have a “pocket veto” and has to either grant assent or withhold it.
“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 Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court’s two-judge bench ruled that if the President takes more than three months to decide on a bill, they must provide valid reasons for the delay and communicate them to the state.
“We prescribe that the President is required to decide on the bills reserved for his consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received,” the SC said.
The apex court added that if the President fails to act within the timeframe, the affected states can seek legal recourse and approach the courts for resolution.
If a bill’s constitutional validity is questioned, the Supreme Court emphasised that the executive shouldn’t act as a judge. Instead, such issues should be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for a determination.
“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 Supreme Court said.
The top court’s order came as it ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted illegally by withholding assent to 10 bills cleared by the DMK government. The court’s decision establishes that governors must act on bills within a specified timeframe and that inaction can be challenged in court.
#Supreme #Court #Sets #Month #Deadline #President #Decide #Bills #Referred #Guv
