In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court has declared that state governments can directly appeal to it if the President of India withholds assent to a bill forwarded by a governor. This clarification came as part of a comprehensive judgment addressing a complaint from Tamil Nadu’s government regarding prolonged delays in presidential consent to legislation passed by its assembly.
The bench, led by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, issued a verdict on April 8 that not only expedited the approval of 10 Tamil Nadu bills—which had been delayed by Governor R.N. Ravi—but also established a strict timeline for governors nationwide regarding legislative assent.
Justice Pardiwala authored the extensive 415-page judgment which meticulously examined the gubernatorial and presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. Article 200 pertains to the governor’s options post-assembly bill passage—granting assent, withholding it, or forwarding it to the President for further consideration. Article 201, meanwhile, addresses the President’s considerations upon receiving such bills.
The court emphasized that both gubernatorial and presidential actions concerning state legislation are accountable and subject to judicial review under specific circumstances. It stated, “Where the Governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration and the President subsequently withholds assent, the State Government is entitled to challenge this action before the Supreme Court.”
The ruling detailed that gubernatorial reservations of bills must not be arbitrary but based on concrete reasons that genuinely threaten democratic principles or pose exceptional risks, as outlined in previous landmark cases like M.P. Special Police and Nabam Rebia. Governors are required to provide explicit reasons for their reservations to the President, which should also reflect a well-founded belief in the potential consequences if the bill were enacted.
The judgment further clarified that reservations made on subjective grounds such as personal dissatisfaction, political expediency, or other irrelevant factors are constitutionally impermissible and subject to immediate legal challenge.
In scenarios where the governor reserves a bill due to its potential unconstitutionality or the necessity for presidential assent for enforcement, the Supreme Court advised that the withholding of assent by the President is justiciable, especially if done arbitrarily or with malice. Moreover, in cases where a bill’s constitutionality is in question, the court recommended that the President seek its advisory opinion under Article 143 to ensure fairness and eliminate any bias.
