In a landmark judgment in the case State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India has laid down clear timelines for the President to take action on Bills that are reserved by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution.
The Court has ruled that once a Governor reserves a Bill for the President’s consideration, the President must decide within 3 months from the date the Bill is received.
"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 bench observed in paragraph 391 of the judgment.
The two-judge bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, emphasized the importance of timely action to ensure smooth functioning in a federal structure.
If there is any delay beyond this period, the President must record proper reasons and communicate them to the concerned State Government. The Court also directed that States should cooperate and promptly respond to any queries or suggestions made by the Central Government in relation to the Bill.
"Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit... then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court."
No Absolute Veto Power for the President
The Court clarified that the President, like the Governor, cannot indefinitely withhold assent to a Bill. There is no provision for the President to use an "absolute veto" by simply sitting on a Bill without action.
"The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts," wrote Justice Pardiwala.
Withholding of Assent Can Be Challenged in Court
The Court also ruled that the President’s decision to withhold assent can be challenged under certain circumstances. If the President’s refusal to assent appears arbitrary or made with malafide intent, it can be reviewed by the judiciary.
Where a Bill belongs to a subject under the State List and the Governor reserves it without the advice of the State Cabinet, the courts have the authority to examine the legal validity, arbitrariness, or malafide nature of the President’s decision.
Reasons for Assent Withholding Must Be Communicated
The Supreme Court made it clear that the President must give clear and written reasons for withholding assent, and those reasons must be conveyed to the State Government.
"The reasons assigned by the President for withholding of assent must be communicated to the State government concerned. Such an inference is legitimate since there remains no logic in assigning reasons if the same cannot be responded to and addressed by the State government."
The Court explained that this communication allows State governments to make necessary amendments or changes, especially if the issues raised are valid and reasonable.
"In the absence of such communication, there exists a real and grave danger of denying the State government the knowledge of the reasons due to which the bill passed by the State legislature had not been assented to."
Transparent communication is essential for healthy Centre-State relations, and the Court stressed that it prevents friction and encourages collaboration in a democratic setup.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Warns Media Houses Against Broadcasting Unverified, One-Sided Reports for TRP Gains
Courts Can Presume Lack of Good Faith in Absence of Reasons
In a strong observation, the Supreme Court said that if no reasons are provided, the Courts can presume that the President (and by extension the Central Government) acted without bona fides.
"This Court is not inhibited in any manner to make a presumption that the President and by extension, the Central government, may not have acted in a bona fide manner."
Pre-legislation Consultation Recommended
To avoid such conflicts in the future, the Court suggested that States should hold pre-legislation consultations with the Centre when they plan to introduce Bills requiring the President’s assent. Likewise, the Central Government should handle legislative proposals from States with due seriousness and promptness.
"Such a practice reduces friction between Centre- State relations and also ensures that future roadblocks are overcome in the beginning itself, thereby promoting public welfare."
President Should Seek Supreme Court’s Advice for Unconstitutional Bills
Finally, if a Bill is reserved on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court said the President should consider referring the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution for legal guidance.
"Whenever... a bill is reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of patent unconstitutionality... the President ought to make a reference to this Court in exercise of his powers under Article 143."
Case Details: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v THE GOVERNOR OF TAMILNADU AND ANR| W.P.(C) No. 1239/2023
