NEW DELHI, APRIL 12, 2025 — In a historic ruling, the Supreme Court of India has laid down crucial guidelines regarding the powers of Governors and the President concerning State legislature bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution. The verdict was delivered on April 8, and the detailed judgment was uploaded on the apex court’s website on the night of April 11.
The judgment came in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled on the constitutional procedures to be followed when a Governor reserves a bill for the President’s assent and emphasized the time-bound and accountable exercise of these powers.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE JUDGMENT
PRESIDENT’S ASSENT IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
In a major development, the Court clarified that decisions made by the President under Article 201 are open to judicial review, especially in matters involving arbitrariness or mala fides.
“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.”
The Court further stated:
- Where Union government primacy is involved, judicial review can be invoked for arbitrariness, mala fides, etc.
- Where State government primacy is present, the courts can review whether the reasons for withholding assent are legally tenable, especially if the Governor acted contrary to the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers.
NO POCKET OR ABSOLUTE VETO BY THE PRESIDENT
The Bench strongly ruled against the practice of indefinite delays in decision-making:
“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 Court held that the President must either grant assent or withhold it, with no room for an absolute or pocket veto.
NO PIECEMEAL USE OF ARTICLE 201’S PROVISO
The Court discouraged fragmented or repeated referrals between the President and the State legislature under the proviso to Article 201:
“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.”
Once the State re-passes the bill, with or without amendments, the President must make a final decision. Even then, if the assent is withheld, detailed reasoning is mandatory.
“…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.”
JUDICIARY ALONE TO JUDGE CONSTITUTIONALITY
The Court made it clear that the constitutional validity of bills is a matter solely for the judiciary, not the executive.
“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 a bill raises serious constitutional concerns, the executive must refer such issues to the Supreme Court under Article 143 for its opinion.
“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.”
Even then, if the President decides to withhold assent, he must record cogent and evidence-backed reasons.
WHY THIS JUDGMENT MATTERS
This verdict resolves a long-standing constitutional ambiguity surrounding:
- Delay in bill assent by the Governor or President,
- Executive overreach in matters of constitutional interpretation,
- And reinforces the role of the judiciary in safeguarding legislative processes.
