President must act within three months on bills sent by governors: SC
For the first time, the Supreme Court of India has set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on state bills referred by governors for Presidential assent. This landmark ruling aims to prevent indefinite delays in the legislative process.
The court emphasized that if the President fails to act within this timeframe, the concerned state government can file a writ petition seeking a mandamus—essentially compelling the President to act.
“The President of India cannot exercise an ‘absolute veto’ or a ‘pocket veto.’ A failure to provide reasons may give rise to a presumption of lack of bona fides,” the court observed.
Under Article 201 of the Constitution, no specific deadline previously existed for Presidential decisions on bills. The Supreme Court’s ruling now provides a structured timeline to prevent misuse or inaction.
SC also fixes timeline for governors under Article 200
On April 8, the Supreme Court also ruled that governors cannot indefinitely delay bills passed by state legislatures. The bench, comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, interpreted the phrase “as soon as possible” under Article 200 as requiring timely action, setting a decision window of one to three months for governors as well.
The bench clarified that the Constitution does not permit a Governor to exercise an absolute veto or delay action indefinitely. “There is no scope for the Governor to simply withhold assent without explanation,” the judgment noted.
Though Article 200 lacks a specific deadline, the court stressed that this does not allow for indefinite delays, which could obstruct the legislative function of the state.
Failure to comply will invite judicial review
The bench underlined that these timelines ensure respect for constitutional roles and promote the effective functioning of India’s federal structure. If the timeline is not adhered to, the court stated, the inaction of governors could be subject to judicial review.
This judgment is particularly significant for several opposition-led states—such as Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, and West Bengal—that have petitioned the Supreme Court against delays by governors in providing assent to bills passed by their legislatures.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Hafiz Saeed’s key role in the Pahalgam terror attack exposed - April 25, 2025
- Pahalgam terror attack linked to Pakistan army chief’s remarks, says ex-Pentagon official Michael Rubin - April 24, 2025
- Pahalgam terror attack: Five militants identified as India links plot to Pakistan-based LeT network - April 24, 2025
NOBODY INCLUDING JUDICIARY SHOULD HAVE UNBRIDLED POWER. If the President and Governors as constitutional functionaries can be constrained by limiting time for giving decisions, WHY NOT THE COURTS?
Just as in the case of the President and governors if the timeline are not met even by the Judiciary, the aggrieved party or the complainant should be deemed to have a favourable judgement. This must start from the Lowest Court.
The 1000s of pages of FIRs and Chargesheets will disappear and become more precise. It will force the defence Lawyer to defend and not delay in agreement or connivance with the Judges. The famous high profile expensive lawyer will go out of business of charging per appearance.
The culture of confusing instead of convincing under the justification of BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT will end. Surely the Judges know difference between defence and delaying methods which they will be forced to exercise.
If the reasonable time in the constitution can be quantified why not the other reasonables, line the restrictions on free speech etc. from within the same Constitution.