New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a first, has said that the President must take a decision within three months on bills referred by governors. The top court’s ruling came as it set aside the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold assent to pending bills on Tuesday. While delivering the verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the discharge of functions by the President under Article 201 was amenable to judicial review.
As per Article 201, when a bill is reserved by a governor, the President shall declare that either he/she assents to the bill or he/she withholds assent therefrom. However, no timeframe is provided in the Constitution. The Supreme Court underscored that the President does not have a “pocket veto” and has to either grant assent or withhold it.
The two-judge bench said in case of a delay beyond the three-month period, the appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state. “We 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,” the top court said.
The court further said that in case of no action within the timeframe, the aggrieved states could approach the courts. If a bill is reserved due to questions of constitutional validity, the top court underlined that the executive should not assume the role of the courts. It said such questions should be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill,” the Supreme Court said. The top court’s order came as it ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted illegally by withholding assent to 10 bills cleared by the DMK government. The court, while setting deadlines for governors to act on bills, said inaction could be subject to judicial review.