New Delhi, April 12: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, prescribed a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills reserved for her consideration by a Governor. The court also restricted governors from indefinitely delaying state legislation, warning that such inaction would now be open to judicial scrutiny.
The judgment, uploaded late Friday night, came four days after the court struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s reservation of 10 Bills for presidential assent and declared the second-round referral “illegal” and “erroneous in law.” A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan said, “The Bills, having been pending with the Governor for an unduly long period of time… are deemed to have been assented to by the Governor on the date when they were presented to him after being reconsidered.”
The 415-page ruling, delivered on April 8, marked the apex court’s response to a prolonged standoff between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor Ravi over delays in clearing state legislation.
The case stemmed from a 2023 petition filed by the state, which claimed that 12 Bills—one dating back to 2020—were still pending with the Governor.
Of these, the Governor later withheld assent to 10 on November 13, prompting the Assembly to re-enact them in a special session on November 18. Several of these were then forwarded to the President.
The court clarified that while Article 200 of the Constitution allows governors to assent, withhold assent, or reserve Bills for the President, it cannot be interpreted as granting indefinite power to delay. “Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not take action… and thereby delay and essentially roadblock the law-making machinery in the State,” the bench noted.
The justices ruled that any reservation or withholding of assent must follow specific timelines. A Bill reserved for the President’s consideration must receive a decision within three months of its referral. If this deadline is exceeded, the court said, “appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
Similarly, governors must act within one month when withholding assent based on the state Cabinet’s advice. If the action is contrary to such advice, the Bill must be returned with a message within three months. For Bills re-enacted by the legislature, the court directed that assent should be granted immediately or within a maximum of one month.
Justice Pardiwala, reading from the judgment, noted, “There is no ‘pocket veto’ or ‘absolute veto’ available to the President… The constitutional scheme does not, in any manner, provide that a constitutional authority can exercise its powers under the Constitution arbitrarily.”
The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare the re-enacted Tamil Nadu Bills as deemed to have received assent. It also directed the Supreme Court registry to send copies of the judgment to all High Courts and principal secretaries to governors across states.
Legal scholar Ramesh Shankar called the ruling “a decisive blow against legislative paralysis,” adding, “This judgment puts an end to the misuse of gubernatorial discretion as a tool for delay.”
The court further observed that the Governor must act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. “Once a Bill is re-presented after reconsideration, it is not open to the Governor to reserve it again,” the bench said.
The verdict now sets a binding precedent, establishing strict procedural timelines for both the Governor and the President when dealing with state legislation, ensuring smoother legislative functioning across India.
