Two days after the Supreme Court set a three-month deadline for the President of India to take a call on all the bills referred by the state governors, a possibility has surfaced for the central government to challenge the landmark judgment as the court ruling in a way took away the President's 'absolute veto' power.
On Tuesday, April 8, the Supreme Court ruled that the Tamil Nadu Governor's decision to withhold assent for key bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary." The oldest bills, withheld by the Governor for assent, dated back to January 2020.
A bench of Justices B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled, "The action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for the President is illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the action is set aside. All actions taken by the Governor thereto for the 10 bills are set aside. These Bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date it was re-presented to the Governor."
However, the details of what the review petition would challenge are not available as of now. According to PTI, discussions are on at the highest echelon of the government on the review petition.
What Did The SC Say?
On Saturday, April 12, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan observed in paragraph 391 of the judgment 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", as per Live Law.
Under Article 201, when a bill is reserved by a governor, the President shall declare that either he/she assents to the bill or he/she withholds assent therefrom. However, earlier no specific timeframe was mentioned for the same in the Constitution.
This time, the top court underscored that the President does not have a "absolute veto" and has to either grant assent or withhold it.
"While in the preceding paragraphs we have elaborated that 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 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," stated the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala, as per Live Law.
The division bench also asserted that said in case of a delay beyond the three-month period, the appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state.
Moreover, in case of inaction within the timeframe, the concerned states could approach also the courts, the bench ruled.
"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 time-limit as has been prescribed by us in paragraph 391 of this judgment then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court", Live Law quoted.
