Last update:
The Supreme Court ruled that if the President takes more than three months to decide on a bill, they must provide valid reasons for the delay and communicate them to the State.
Supreme Court of India. (Archive)
The Supreme Court ruled that the president must decide on the bills referred to by the governors within three months. This historical decision occurred after the court revoked the decision of the governor of Tamil Nadu to retain the approval of the pending bills. The order was made public on Friday.
While issuing the verdict in the Tamil Nadu case, a JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan judges said that the discharge of functions by the President under article 201 was susceptible to judicial review.
In accordance with article 201, when a governor reserves a bill, the president can approve or reject it. However, the Constitution does not specify a time frame for this decision.
The Supreme Court stressed that the president does not have a “pocket veto” and has to grant or retain it.
“The position of the law is resolved that the time limit for the exercise of any power under a statute is not prescribed, it must be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under article 201 cannot, he said.
The Bank of two Judges of the Supreme Court ruled that if the President takes more than three months to decide on a bill, they must provide reasons for the delay and communicate them to the State.
“We prescribe that the president must decide on the bills reserved for his consideration by the governor within three months from the date that said reference is received,” said the SC.
The Apex court added that if the president does not act within the deadline, the affected states can seek a legal appeal and address the courts for their resolution.
If the constitutional validity of a bill is questioned, the Supreme Court emphasized that the Executive should not act as a judge. On the other hand, such issues must be sent to the Supreme Court under article 143 for a determination.
“We have no qualms about affirming that the Executive’s hands are linked while committing to purely legal issues in a bill and only constitutional courts have the prerogative of study
The order of the Superior Court occurred when it ruled that Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi acted illegally by retaining the consent of 10 bills authorized by the DMK government. The Court’s decision establishes that governors must act on invoices within a specific period and that inaction can be challenged in court.