In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has mandated that the President of India decide on bills reserved by state governors for her consideration within three months. This directive aims to streamline the legislative process and prevent undue delays in bill approvals.
The decision came to light when the court’s detailed 415-page judgment was made public late Friday evening, marking a significant move to enforce timelines on gubernatorial actions regarding state legislation.
Historically, several bills passed by state assemblies have lingered without presidential assent due to being reserved by governors. This situation led to substantial legislative backlogs and governance delays, prompting the apex court to intervene.
The bench, led by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, criticized the excessive delay in gubernatorial actions, describing some reservations of bills for presidential consideration as “illegal and erroneous in law.” This ruling follows a recent decision where the court had to address a specific case involving 10 Tamil Nadu bills delayed by Governor R N Ravi.
The Supreme Court’s decision stipulates that if the President does not act within the three-month period, detailed reasons for any delay must be recorded and communicated to the relevant state. Furthermore, states are urged to cooperate by promptly responding to queries from the central government, facilitating a smoother legislative process.
Under Article 200 of the Constitution, while the governor has the power to assent to bills or reserve them for the President, there has been no set timeline for these actions until now. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that such inaction can no longer hinder state legislation.
Additionally, the court emphasized that governors must act on the advice of the state’s Council of Ministers and cannot use their position to unduly delay or block legislation by reserving it unnecessarily for presidential consideration.
The directive also outlined that any governor’s failure to comply with these timelines could lead to judicial review, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring that executive powers are not misused to stall legislative processes.
