Supreme Court Sets 3-Month Deadline for President’s Decision on Bills Reserved by Governors

In a landmark judgment aimed at ensuring greater efficiency and accountability in the legislative process, the Supreme Court of India has directed that the President must decide on bills referred to her by state governors within a period of three months. The ruling comes in the context of delays observed in the legislative process, particularly in Tamil Nadu, where 10 bills were stalled for extended periods after being reserved for the President’s assent by the state’s Governor, RN Ravi.

On April 8, a two-judge bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered a 415-page judgment addressing the issue of delay in gubernatorial and presidential assent to bills passed by state legislatures. The court’s ruling followed a petition challenging the inaction and stalling of bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, some of which had remained pending without explanation.

The court’s ruling effectively cleared the 10 bills in question and set a clear framework for the future. It emphasized that while the Constitution provides discretion to the Governor under Article 200—which allows the Governor to assent, withhold assent, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration—this discretion cannot be used arbitrarily or result in indefinite delays.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court stated:

“We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and prescribe that 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.”

This directive marks the first time the court has imposed a specific timeframe on the President’s decision-making process regarding reserved bills, filling a longstanding procedural gap. The Constitution, while granting powers to Governors and the President in legislative matters, does not specify time limits for their decisions, which has allowed for extended delays in several instances across states.

The bench further clarified that if there is a delay in granting or withholding assent beyond the three-month window, the concerned authority must provide valid and appropriate reasons to the respective state government. The move aims to improve transparency and ensure that constitutional processes are not reduced to political tools.

The court also touched upon the principle that the Governor cannot exercise what is termed as an “absolute veto” over legislation passed by a democratically elected state legislature. Prolonged withholding of assent without reason or clarity, the bench observed, effectively stalls the functioning of the state’s law-making machinery and undermines democratic processes.

“Although the Constitution does not prescribe a timeframe for such decisions, the withholding of assent by a Governor or President for an unduly long period of time leads to a constitutional deadlock, which must be avoided,” the judgment noted.

Highlighting the importance of cooperative federalism, the court reiterated that Governors are expected to act as a bridge between the Centre and states, not as political gatekeepers. The prolonged delay in Tamil Nadu, the court pointed out, was a prime example of how inaction could disrupt governance at the state level.

The judgment also laid down the procedure in case of future disputes. If the President withholds assent after a bill has been reserved by a Governor, the concerned state government will have the legal right to challenge the decision in court. This provision adds another layer of accountability and empowers state governments to seek judicial redress when they feel that legislative authority is being unjustly stalled or denied.

The 10 Tamil Nadu bills involved in the case had covered various administrative, educational, and governance-related issues. Their prolonged stagnation led the state government to move the Supreme Court, arguing that Governor RN Ravi was overstepping his constitutional role by selectively reserving bills and not acting on them in a timely manner.

In response to the ruling, several legal experts and political leaders hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a step forward in strengthening India’s federal structure. They noted that the judgment not only provides much-needed clarity but also sets a precedent for how constitutional offices must function within a democratic framework.

The verdict is expected to influence how other states and Governors handle legislation moving forward, especially in politically charged environments where friction between state governments and the Centre is high.

By enforcing a clear timeline and adding provisions for accountability, the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance to ensure that the wheels of legislation move smoothly, and the balance between constitutional roles and democratic responsibility is maintained.