The President cannot keep a bill pending forever. He must decide within 3 months, and if he delays, he must give proper reasons in writing.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India gave an important judgment on April 8, 2025, explaining the responsibilities of the Governor and the President of India in matters related to State Bills. This judgment came was uploaded on the court’s website on April 11.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan gave detailed explanations about Article 200 and Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.
What is Article 200 and Article 201?
- Article 200: This article deals with the powers of the Governor when a State Legislature passes a bill and presents it to the Governor.
- Article 201: This article talks about the procedure when the Governor sends the Bill to the President for consideration.
According to Article 201, once a Bill is sent to the President, the President must either agree to it (assent) or refuse (withhold) assent.
Under Article 201, when a State Bill is reserved by the Governor for the President’s consideration, it cannot become law unless the President gives assent. But this Article does not mention any time limit for the President to take a decision.
The Court explained that even if no timeline is written in the Article, it does not mean the President can take unlimited time or delay the process:
“while the language of Article 201 does not provide for any timelines within which the President is required to act, the absence of a time-limit cannot be construed as indicating that the discharge of functions by the President under the said Article can be done without due deference to the important nature of the role they occupy as regards the legislative machinery of the State. Any Bill(s) reserved for the consideration of the President cannot become an Act unless it receives the assent as is mentioned in Article 201, and thus, long and undue delays in the disposal of references by the President would have the effect of keeping the Bill(s), which are an expression of the popular will embodied by the State legislature, in an indefinite and uncertain state of abeyance”.
The Court accepted that the President might need some time to study and understand the Bill, but also made it clear:
“although we are cognisant of the fact that in discharge of his powers under Article 201, the President is expected to ‘consider’ the Bill and such ‘consideration’ may be difficult to be bound by strict timelines, yet it cannot be a ground to justify inaction on part of the President”.
And further, the Court strongly warned that unjustified delay by the President would be unconstitutional:
“delay on part of the President in deciding a reference under Article 201, without any justification or necessity, would fall foul of the basic constitutional principle that the exercise of a power must not be arbitrary and capricious. The implications of inaction being of a serious nature and detrimental to the federal fabric of the Constitution, there should be no scope for unnecessary delay on part of the President under Article 201 as well.”
What Did the Supreme Court Say?
The Court referred to past recommendations by two important commissions:
- The Sarkaria Commission, led by Justice R.S. Sarkaria (a former Supreme Court judge), was formed in 1983 to study how the Centre and States work together.
- The Punchhi Commission, formed in 2007 under former Chief Justice of India Justice M.M. Punchhi, also studied Centre-State relations.
Both these commissions had pointed out that the process under Article 201 of the Constitution must follow clear time limits. The Court noted:
“recommended that definite timelines must be adopted for facilitating the efficient disposal of references under Article 201”
and
“the reading of a timeline in Article 201 was also suggested by the Punchhi Commission”.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations
1. President’s Decisions Can Be Reviewed by Courts
The Court ruled that the President’s actions under Article 201 are open to judicial review, meaning the courts can examine the President’s decision in some situations.
The Court said:
“The grant of assent under Article 201 has an element of political hue by virtue of the fact that the President under Article 201 has been given the prerogative to decide whether the grant of assent in certain cases would be desirable or not.”
It explained two types of situations:
- If the Bill is about a subject where the Union Government has the main role (like national policies), the court can review the President’s decision only on limited grounds such as arbitrariness or bad intention (malafides).
- If the Bill is about a subject mainly under the State Government, and the Governor sends it to the President against the advice of the State Ministers, the courts can check whether the reasons to withhold assent are valid under law.
2. No Pocket Veto: President Must Decide Within 3 Months
The Court said that based on all these points—recommendations, rules, and constitutional principles—it is not powerless. If constitutional authorities are not doing their job on time, courts can act. It said:
“the recommendations made by the Sarakaria and Punchhi Commissions respectively and the guidelines framed by the Central government taken collectively indicate the expediency involved in the disposal of references under Article 201 along with the importance of the role of the President. In this backdrop, it must be made clear that the Courts would not be powerless to intervene in cases where the exercise of function by a constitutional authority is not being done without a reasonable time.”
So, what is the final timeline?
“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 Court clearly said the President does not have an absolute or pocket veto.
It said:
“The President is required to take a decision on the bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State.”
The President cannot keep a bill pending forever. He must decide within 3 months, and if he delays, he must give proper reasons in writing.
3. Proviso to Article 201 Should Not Be Used in Pieces
The Proviso to Article 201 allows the President to send the Bill back to the State Legislature for reconsideration (except Money Bills). The State must reconsider it within six months, and then send it again to the President.
The Court said:
“Piecemeal exercise of the proviso to Article 201 must be dissuaded. This is to prevent the endless loop of sending and re-sending of the bill that may ensue between the President acting under the proviso to Article 201 and the House or Houses of the State Legislature.”
So, the President should not return the Bill again and again just to delay it.
The Court made it very clear:
“…if he [President] chooses to withhold his assent, the bill will not take birth as law. It must, however, be noted that even during the withholding of assent of a bill received on the second round, the President would be required to assign clear and sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at such a decision.”
This means that even in the second round, the President has to act transparently and responsibly.
The Court further added:
“In cases where the reservation is on the ground of repugnancy of the State legislation with a Central legislation, or under one of the provisions where the assent of President has been envisaged for the purpose of enforceability or imparting immunity to the legislation, it would be a matter where the President would decide the question of grant of assent keeping in mind the desirability of having a uniformity in the policy across the country on the subject matter involved.”
4. Only Courts Can Decide Constitutional Validity of Bills
The Supreme Court gave a strong message that the executive (President or Governor) cannot judge whether a Bill is constitutional or not.
The Court said:
“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill.”
If there is any doubt about the legality or constitutionality of a Bill, the matter should be referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
The Court stated:
“In our considered view, the only reason for which the legislative or the executive wing may not take note of the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court under Article 143 is when the grounds on which a State bill was reserved for the consideration of the President, are not purely legal but also involve certain policy considerations, which may outweigh the issue of constitutionality. In such cases, if the President acts contrary to the advice of this Court and withholds assent to a bill, he must record cogent reasons and materials that justify not granting assent.”
5.Guidelines by the Central Government
The Court also pointed out that the Central Government had issued guidelines to speed up the process.
Two Office Memorandums (OMs) from the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 4 February 2016, were mentioned. These were sent to all Central Ministries and Departments regarding how quickly State Bills must be dealt with:
“expeditious disposal of State Bills reserved for the assent of the President.”
The first OM gave clear deadlines:
“expeditious examination and disposal of State Legislative proposals by the Central Ministries/Departments/State Governments …makes it clear that a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on Bills reserved for the President. A time limit of three weeks has been prescribed for the disposal of ordinances of an urgent nature.”
The Court added:
“it becomes clear upon the perusal of the guidelines that in recognition of the urgent and important nature of Article 201, the Central Government has framed clear guidelines as regards the time limits and the manner in which references under Article 201 are expected to be disposed of”
and
“the factum of its (OMs) existence and acceptance reveals that the requirement of expeditious or even a strict time-bound action would be consistent with the aim and object of Article 201.”
President and Governor Cannot Use Absolute Veto
The Court also made it clear that just like Governors, Presidents cannot reject a Bill without giving proper reasons:
“must” also “be accompanied by sound and specific reasons that necessitate the withholding.”
And explained:
“While… 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.”
There is only one difference between the roles of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201:
“The only exception that has been carved out by the Constitution as regards the exercise of powers by the Governor and that of the President under Article(s) 200 and 201 of the Constitution is that in the former, the Governor once having withheld assent from a Bill would then be bound to assent upon the reconsideration of such Bill, whereas in the latter no such compulsion is constitutionally imagined for the President, owing to the very fact that the grant or withholding of assent in terms of Article 201 is not the ordinary law-making procedure so far as the States are concerned,”
and
“extraordinary situation” only arises, the bench said, “wherever policy considerations are involved in an otherwise State legislation but nevertheless having the propensity of a pan-country effect that is necessitated by the very quasi-federal nature of our polity”.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
On October 31, 2023, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court, challenging Governor R.N. Ravi’s decision to keep several Bills and proposals pending without giving any response. The state government raised concerns that the Governor had delayed important decisions, leading to a constitutional issue.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Remove Tamil Nadu Governor R N Ravi
The Tamil Nadu government categorized the pending matters into four main types:
1.The first category included 12 Bills that were passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 2020 and 2023.
According to Article 200 of the Constitution, once a Bill is passed by the Legislative Assembly, it must be sent to the Governor. The Governor has three options: give assent to the Bill, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
Article 200 also states that the Governor should return the Bill “as soon as possible” along with suggestions for changes. If the Bill is passed again by the Assembly and sent back to the Governor, he must give his approval and cannot withhold it.
The Tamil Nadu government said these 12 Bills aimed to change laws related to state universities. Eight of these Bills sought to give the state government the power to appoint Vice Chancellors instead of the Governor.
One Bill proposed including a government representative in the panel that selects the Vice Chancellor. Two Bills suggested that the power of inspection and inquiry should be given to the government instead of the university Chancellor.
Three Bills proposed adding the Finance Secretary to the Syndicate of all universities, except three government universities.
One Bill aimed to set up a government-run Ayurveda university. Another Bill sought to give the state government complete control over appointing Vice Chancellors in all universities except the University of Madras.
2.The second category of pending cases involved files submitted between April 10, 2022, and May 15, 2023. These files sought permission to prosecute government officials for corruption and crimes under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The third category included 54 files related to the early release of prisoners. These files were submitted between August 24, 2023, and June 28, 2023, but remained pending with the Governor.
4.The fourth category involved proposals for appointing members to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Article 316 of the Constitution states that the Governor must appoint the Chairman and other members of the State Public Service Commission. However, the Tamil Nadu government alleged that the Governor had not acted on these proposals.
On November 10, 2023, the Supreme Court took serious note of the delay. The Bench stated that the pending Bills and proposals were “a matter of serious concern.” It issued a notice to the Union of India through the Home Ministry and asked the Attorney General or Solicitor General to assist the Court.
[ Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr].
View Judgement
