The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a three-month deadline on the president to approve or reject bills referred by state governors.

“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the State concerned,” the court said in its 414-page judgment, which was made public on Friday.

States, meanwhile, are expected to answer questions and consider recommendations from the Centre regarding the bills, the Supreme Court ordered.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan added that the president should seek the Supreme Court’s advice on bills that are reserved by governors because of alleged unconstitutionality.

“This is all the more necessary as there is no mechanism at the State level for the Governor to refer Bills to the constitutional courts for their advice or opinion thereupon,” the bench remarked.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the president does not have “unbridled powers” to exercise “absolute veto” on any bill.

“The Governor does not hold the power to exercise absolute veto on any bill, we see no reason why the same standard would also not apply to the President under Article 201 as well,” the judgment said. “The President is not an exception to this default rule which permeates throughout our Constitution. Such unbridled powers cannot be said to remain in either of these constitutional posts.”

In the same judgment, the court held that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s decision to withhold assent to 10 bills, some of which were pending since January 2020, and refer them to the president after they were re-enacted by the Assembly was “illegal and erroneous”.

The court declared that the 10 bills would be deemed to have received the governor’s assent from the date they were passed a second time by the legislature.

It also set aside any action taken by the president based on the governor’s reference.

The bench held that the governor was “not acting with bona fides” and had “shown scant respect” to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in a case concerning the delaying of bills by the Punjab governor.

The constitutional guidelines under Article 200 say:

  • If a bill is to be withheld or reserved with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, a decision must be taken within one month.

  • If the governor withholds or reserves the bill contrary to the government’s advice, the decision must be taken within three months.

  • If a bill is presented again after reconsideration by the Assembly, the governor must give assent within one month.

The Tamil Nadu government had moved the Supreme Court after Ravi did not act on several bills for over three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. Most of the bills relate to higher education, including measures to remove the governor as chancellor of state universities.

Of the 10 re-enacted bills sent to the president in November 2023, one was approved, seven were rejected and two were pending.

Also read: