SC Laid Down 3 Month Deadline For President To Assent Bill Reserved By Governor

In a landmark judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023), the Supreme Court of India addressed a critical void in the legislative process—delays in Presidential assent to State Bills reserved under Article 201. For the first time, the Court established a 3-month deadline for the President’s decision, ensuring accountability and protecting the principles of federalism and democratic governance. Additionally, the Court advised that the President ought to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 in cases where a Bill is reserved for perceived unconstitutionality. This judgment is a significant step toward safeguarding the spirit of cooperative federalism and curbing executive arbitrariness.

Key Highlights on SC Verdict

Constitutional Articles Involved

• Article 201: Deals with President’s powers on State Bills reserved by the Governor.
• Article 143: Provides the power to the President to seek advisory opinion of the Supreme Court.

SC Interpretation of Article 201

• When a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration, the President must act within 3 months.
• Earlier, no timeline existed, causing legislative paralysis and uncertainty.
• The Court held that indefinite delay is unconstitutional and violates the principle of non-arbitrariness.

Time-Bound Decision

• 3-month deadline is now established for the President to assent or withhold assent.
• The decision must be reasoned and communicated to the concerned State Government.

No “Absolute Veto”

• The President cannot indefinitely withhold assent—this would amount to an unconstitutional “absolute veto”.
• The withholding must be justified with sound legal reasoning, not political considerations.

Recourse to Judiciary

• States may approach courts if there is prolonged inaction.
• They can file a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel Presidential action.

Article 143: Seeking SC Opinion

• If the Governor reserves a Bill citing unconstitutionality, the President ought to consult the SC.
• Though not binding, SC’s advisory opinion holds high persuasive value.
• Prevents enactment of patently unconstitutional laws, saving public resources.

Difference Between Governor & President

• If the Governor returns a Bill, and it is re-passed by the State Legislature, he must assent.
• The President is not bound similarly under Article 201.

Policy vs Constitutionality

• SC will only advise if the issue is a purely legal/constitutional question.
• It will not intervene if the matter pertains to policy, socio-economic or political questions.

Supporting References

Sarkaria Commission (1988) & Punchhi Commission (2010) recommended,

• Time-bound Presidential decisions.
• Article 143 consultation in cases of constitutional doubts.
• MHA Office Memorandums (2016) also prescribed a 3-month timeline.

Summary/Static	Details
Why in the news?	SC Laid Down 3 Month Deadline For President To Assent Bill Reserved By Governor
Article Invoked	Article 201, Article 143
Timeframe for Decision	President must decide within 3 months
Type of Action Required	Assent or Withholding, with reasoned communication
On Withholding Assent	Must be based on sound legal grounds
Judicial Recourse	States may file Writ of Mandamus
SC’s Role via Article 143	Advisory opinion in constitutional matters (not policy)
Governor vs. President	Governor must assent if Bill re-passed; President is not bound
Relevant Reports	Sarkaria Commission, Punchhi Commission, MHA 2016 Memo
Limitation on SC Advisory	No comment on policy or political matters
Aim of the Ruling	To end indefinite delay, uphold cooperative federalism