In a first, SC sets 3-month timeframe for President to decide on Bills referred by Governor

In an unprecedented verdict, the Supreme Court has restricted the President’s discretionary powers on Bills referred by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution and set a three-month timeframe for her to decide on the Bills reserved for her consideration.

Advertisement

“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. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state,” a Bench led by Justice JB Pardiwala said.

“Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a Bill is presented to him (her) for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit (of three months) then it shall be open to the state government to seek a writ of mandamus from this court,” said the Bench which also included Justice R Mahadevan.

“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the state concerned. The states are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central Government expeditiously,” it said, adding “that the simpliciter withholding of assent both by the President and the Governor would be impermissible within the fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy.”

Exercising its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench declared that the 10 Bills would be deemed to have received the Governor’s assent when they were presented to him for the second time after having been passed by the state legislature again.

This is for the first time that such a timeframe has been set for the President. The verdict assumes significance in view of the fact that the Constitution does not prescribe any such timeframe for the President for exercise of her executive powers on several issues, including mercy petitions and judicial appointments.

The Bench said the President should seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution on Bills referred to her consideration by the Governor under Article 201.

“Where a state Bill has been reserved by the Governor, in his discretion, for the consideration of the President on the ground that the bill appears to be patently unconstitutional for placing the principles of representative democracy in peril, the withholding of assent by the President would, in ordinary circumstances, involve purely legal and constitutional questions and therefore be justiciable without any impediments imposed by the doctrine of political thicket,” it said.

Given its serious implications, the government was likely to request the top court to review the verdict, sources said.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Pardiwala said, “In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.”

The top court said, “…it would not be open to the President to withhold assent without ascribing reasons as regards the doubt raised by the Governor to such a Bill. In such a case, the ideal course for the President would be to obtain legal opinion as regards the Bill, in appropriate cases, by making reference to this court under Article 143, and only thereafter declare the grant or withholding of assent. Where the grounds of withholding of assent are not concerned with policy areas in which the Union has primacy, the courts would have a greater degree of judicial scrutiny.”

While noting that the language of Article 201 does not provide for any timelines within which the President is required to act, it said, “The absence of a time limit cannot be construed as indicating that the discharge of functions by the President under the said Article can be done without due deference to the important nature of the role they occupy as regards the legislative machinery of the state.”

The top court clarified that the possible situations illustrated in the verdict “are not meant to be exhaustive and in the specific facts of a given case, the courts may evolve new standards of judicial scrutiny to ensure that the constitutionally prescribed procedure is adhered to in letter and spirit.”