Supreme Court Mandates 3-Month Deadline For Presidential Decision On State Bills

According to a Supreme Court decision, the president has three months to make a decision on bills that governors refer. The President must notify the state and give good reason for any delay in decision-making if it exceeds three months. This decision, which was made public on Friday, was a part of a historic ruling that overturned the Tamil Nadu governor's decision to deny approval for bills that were still pending.

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan declared during the verdict-giving in the Tamil Nadu case that the President's performance of duties under Article 201 is subject to judicial review.

According to Article 201 of the Constitution, the President has the authority to accept or reject a bill that a governor reserves. But there is no timeline for this decision in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court underlined that the President must either give assent or not. The President does not have a "pocket veto."

It is a well-established legal principle that any authority granted by a statute must be used within a reasonable amount of time, even if no time limit is specified. It cannot be claimed that the President's use of his authority under Article 201 is exempt from this general legal principle, the court ruled.

The two-judge bench decided that the president must give the state good reasons for the delay if it takes more than three months to decide on a bill.

The Supreme Court ruled that the President must make a decision on the bills that the governor has set aside for his review within three months of receiving the reference.

The court further stated that the impacted states may pursue legal action and turn to the courts for a resolution if the President does not act within this time frame.

The court stated that the executive branch should not act as a judge when addressing the question of whether bills are constitutional. If there are any doubts about whether a bill is constitutional, they ought to be sent to the Supreme Court for a ruling under Article 143.

The court declared, "We have no qualms in stating that only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill, and that the executive's hands are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill."
The Supreme Court ruled that RN Ravi, the governor of Tamil Nadu, had committed an illegal act by refusing to ratify ten bills that the DMK government had passed. The ruling affirms that inaction can be contested in court and mandates that governors take action on bills within a certain amount of time.