SC mandates three-month timeframe for President’s decision on state bills

THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK

New Delhi, April 12: In a landmark judgment in the ‘State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu’ case, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, set clear timelines for both Governors and the President on decisions regarding state bills.

The Court ruled that when a Governor reserves a bill for the President’s assent under Article 201, the President must act within three months of receiving the reference. If a decision is delayed beyond this period, the reasons must be conveyed in writing to the state government.

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted that delays by constitutional authorities without valid justification can face judicial scrutiny. They cited recommendations from the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, as well as Central Government guidelines, which advocate against unnecessary delays.

Also Read- Security forces eliminate two Naxals in Chhattisgarh

Further, the Court clarified that if the President withholds assent to a reserved bill, the affected state government has the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court. It further clarified that, similar to Governors, the President cannot exercise an “absolute veto” by indefinitely withholding action on bills.

Advertisement

Setting parallel timelines for Governors under Article 200, the Court ruled that if a Governor returns a bill to the Assembly or forwards it to the President, it must be done within one month.

If a Governor withholds assent against the advice of the Council of Ministers, the bill must be returned with a message within three months. Once the Assembly re-passes a bill, the Governor is required to grant assent within one month, treating it as a formal obligation.

The judgment, delivered in open court on April 8 and uploaded at midnight on April 11, has been sent to the Principal Secretaries of all State Governors and the High Courts for immediate compliance.

Advertisement