In a yet another landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has set a deadline of three-month for the President to decide on a bill sent by a Governor for consideration and in the event of any delay in adhering to the prescribed time limit appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State and the same is open to judicial review.

The top court has set the time limit of three months for deciding on a bill referred to her for consideration, stating that “the position of law is settled that even where no time-limit is prescribed for the exercise of any power under a statute, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. The exercise of powers by the President under Article 201 cannot be said to be immune to this general principle of law.”

Advertisement

Having ruled that the even the President of India is not immune to this general principle of law, the top court in its judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs RN Ravi Governor pronounced on April 8 in its conclusion had said, “Keeping in mind the expedient nature of the provision and having regard to the reports of Sarkaria and Puncchi Commissions, as well as the Memorandum dated 04.02.2016 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 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. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”

The judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala said, “We, therefore, deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the aforesaid guidelines, and 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. In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. The States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central government expeditiously.”

The top court bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan have further said, “Whenever, in exercise of the powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, a bill is reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of patent unconstitutionality that are of such a nature so as to cause peril to the principles of representative democracy, the President, must be guided by the fact that it is the constitutional courts which have been entrusted with the responsibility of adjudicating upon the questions of constitutionality and legality of an executive or legislative action.”

Therefore, the top court has said that as a measure of prudence, the President ought to make a reference to this Court in exercise of his powers under Article 143 of the Constitution.

The judgment further said that where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court.

The judgment said that the State government can assail such inaction in a situation “where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable or securing some immunity therefor, then in such cases the withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or malafide manner. Owing to the political nature of the assent of the President in these categories of bills, the courts would impose a self-restraint.”

Another ground of challenging the inaction by the President included, “Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor, in his discretion, for the consideration of the President on the ground that the bill appears to be patently unconstitutional for placing the principles of representative democracy in peril, the withholding of assent by the President would, in ordinary circumstances, involve purely legal and constitutional questions and therefore be justiciable without any impediments imposed by the doctrine of political thicket. In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of this Court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.”

The further ground for challenging the inaction would include, the top court said, “Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the (three-months) time-limit as has been prescribed by us then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court.”

Making clear that the decision of the President is open to judicial review, the top court said, “Judicial review and justiciability are not synonymous concepts. The power of judicial review in a written constitution is implicit. Unless expressly excluded by a provision of the Constitution, the power of judicial review is available in respect of exercise of powers under any of the provisions of the Constitution. On the other hand, justiciability relates to a particular field falling within the purview of the power of judicial review.”