Streamlining Governance: Supreme Court’s Directive on Presidential Bill Decisions

• Case Background: The Supreme Court ruled on Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s action of reserving 10 bills for Presidential consideration in November 2024, deeming it “erroneous and illegal.”
• Bench Composition: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment, emphasizing constitutional timelines.
• Article 200 Options: Under Article 200, a Governor can assent, withhold assent, return a bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
• No Absolute Veto: The Court clarified that neither Governors nor the President have absolute veto power; withholding assent requires “sound and specific reasons.”
• Presidential Timeframe: The ruling mandates the President to decide on referred bills within three months from the date of receipt.
• Article 201: This article governs Presidential actions on reserved bills but lacks a specific timeframe, prompting the Court’s intervention.
• MHA Guidelines: The Court adopted the Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2016 Office Memorandums, prescribing three months for bill decisions and three weeks for urgent ordinances.
• Reasoned Decisions: Delays beyond three months must be justified with recorded reasons communicated to the state.
• State Cooperation: States are required to respond promptly to central government queries and consider suggestions to expedite processes.
• Tamil Nadu Context: The Governor’s reservation of bills after Assembly reconsideration was ruled invalid, as it disrupted legislative intent.
• Federal Balance: The judgment reinforces cooperative federalism, ensuring Governors and the President act within constitutional bounds.
• Impact on Governance: The ruling aims to prevent legislative paralysis caused by indefinite delays in bill approvals.
• Judicial Oversight: The Court’s directive strengthens accountability in the legislative process, aligning with democratic principles.
• Historical Precedent: The ruling builds on prior judgments, like those on Governors’ roles, to clarify executive responsibilities.
• Broader Implications: The decision may influence similar cases, ensuring timely legislative action across states.

Key Terms:

• Article 200: Constitutional provision outlining Governors’ options on state bills.
• Article 201: Governs Presidential actions on bills reserved by Governors.
• Governor’s Role: Executive head of a state with bill assent powers.
• Presidential Assent: President’s approval or rejection of reserved state bills.
• Cooperative Federalism: Collaboration between center and states for governance.
• Absolute Veto: Unconditional rejection of a bill, not permitted for Governors or President.
• MHA Guidelines: 2016 directives setting timelines for bill and ordinance decisions.
• Legislative Paralysis: Stalling of law-making due to delays in assent.

Link To The Original Article – https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-sets-timeframe-for-president-on-referred-bills-decide-in-3-months-9939603/