Landmark Supreme Court Ruling: Constraints on President's Power to Withhold Bills
The Supreme Court of India has given a landmark ruling detailing the powers and duties of Governors and the President as far as bills tabled before them by state legislatures are concerned. This ruling arises from a conflict between the State Governor and the government of Tamil Nadu over pending bill assent.
Major Findings:
Judicial Review of President's Actions: The Court has ordered that the President's actions are judicially reviewable, asserting that the President does not have absolute veto powers.
Time Limit for Decision-Making: The President must make a decision on bills within three months from receipt, giving reasonable grounds for delay.
No Absolute Veto: The powers of the President are restricted to giving assent or withholding it but without any scope for pocket veto.
Constitutionality to be Decided by Judiciary: It has been held by the Supreme Court that whether a bill is constitutional or not is to be decided by the judiciary and not by the executive or the President.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment seeks to simplify the legislative process and avoid unnecessary delays. The Court has stressed that the President must refer the matter to the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 when constitutional validity issues are raised. The judgment also highlights that the executive should not usurp the role of courts in deciding the vires of a bill ¹ ².
Article 143: Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The President may request advisory opinions from the Supreme Court on issues of law or fact of great public significance. While the advisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is discretionary, the Court has indicated that the President should request an opinion in cases of alleged unconstitutionality ¹.
Reaction to the Judgment
The government of Tamil Nadu welcomed the Supreme Court decision as a "historic victory" for state governments. But a review petition will probably be moved by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs against the judgment. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin's conflict with Governor RN Ravi over state bills resulted in this landmark judgment ¹.