In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has established a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills referred by state Governors. This directive addresses the previously undefined timeframe under Article 201 of the Constitution, which governs the President’s assent to state legislation.
The ruling emerged from a case involving the Tamil Nadu Governor’s reservation of ten bills for presidential consideration after they had been reconsidered and passed by the state assembly. The Supreme Court deemed this action illegal and erroneous, emphasizing that constitutional authorities must perform their duties within a reasonable period.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, highlighted the absence of a specific timeframe in Article 201 as a longstanding issue affecting Centre-State relations. The court’s decision aligns with recommendations from the Sarkaria Commission, which advocated for definitive timelines to ensure efficient legislative processes.
The court clarified that if the President withholds assent to a bill, the concerned state government has the right to challenge this decision in the Supreme Court. This provision reinforces the judiciary’s role in maintaining the balance of power between the central and state governments.
This ruling is particularly significant in light of recent disputes involving state governments and Governors over delayed assent to legislation. For instance, the Kerala government approached the Supreme Court after the Governor referred seven bills to the President, who then withheld assent to four without providing reasons.
By instituting a clear timeframe, the Supreme Court aims to prevent indefinite delays in the legislative process, ensuring that state assemblies’ decisions are addressed promptly. This move is expected to enhance the efficiency and accountability of legislative procedures across the country.
