Why in the News?

In a groundbreaking development, the Supreme Court has mandated a timeline for the President of India to act on state legislature Bills reserved by Governors. This historic judgment, delivered recently, addresses a long-standing constitutional grey area under Article 201 and is likely to reshape Centre-State legislative relations.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Article 201 (Background, Tamil Nadu Case, Court’s Intervention, Broader Implications, etc.)

Background: Constitutional Context of Article 201

• Article 201 of the Constitution allows a Governor to reserve a Bill passed by a State Legislature for the President’s consideration.
• However, the Constitution does not prescribe a specific timeframe for the President to act.
• This ambiguity has often led to inordinate delays, with Bills being kept in limbo for months, sometimes years.
• The absence of a deadline has sparked tensions between State governments and the Centre, often fuelling political and legal disputes.

The Tamil Nadu Case and Supreme Court’s Intervention

• The ruling came in response to a plea challenging Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi’s decision in November 2023 to reserve ten Bills for Presidential consideration, despite the Bills already having been reconsidered and passed again by the State Assembly.
• The apex court, through a bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, declared the Governor’s action illegal and unwarranted.
• In its verdict, the Court clarified that constitutional functionaries, including the President, are not immune from judicial scrutiny when delays disrupt legislative processes.
• The judgment emphasized that constitutional roles, though devoid of explicit timelines, must be performed within “reasonable time” to uphold democratic values.

Three-Month Deadline for Presidential Action

• In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the Supreme Court has now stipulated that the President must take a decision on such Bills within three months from the date of receipt.
• If this deadline is missed, the Centre must provide appropriate reasons to the concerned State.
• The Court based its direction on:
  • Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016, recommending timelines for legislative proposals and urgent ordinances.
  • Recommendations by both the Sarkaria Commission (1983) and the Punchhi Commission (2007), which called for definite timelines to ensure efficiency in legislative procedures.

Broader Implications for Federalism and Governance

• This decision is a step forward in balancing India’s quasi-federal structure by upholding the legislative autonomy of State Assemblies.
• The Court cautioned against arbitrary inaction, saying delays in Presidential assent “would fall foul of basic constitutional principles” and hurt the federal spirit.
• Key implications include:
  • Accountability: Both Governors and the President are now expected to act within reasonable timelines, ensuring Bills are not held in indefinite abeyance.
  • Judicial Oversight: Courts have reaffirmed their power to intervene when constitutional authorities fail in their duties.
  • Policy Efficiency: State governments can now pursue their legislative agendas with greater clarity and predictability.

Importance of Reasoned Decision-Making

• The Court also noted that just like Governors cannot use an “absolute veto,” the President’s decision to withhold assent must be accompanied by sound, specific, and recorded reasons.
• This brings much-needed transparency and structure to a constitutional provision that had long operated in a legal vacuum.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directive to time-bound Presidential decisions under Article 201 marks a significant milestone in India’s constitutional journey. It protects legislative sovereignty, ensures accountability among top constitutional functionaries, and reaffirms the importance of timely governance in a federal democracy.