Governors Case Verdict: Supreme Court limits President’s powers on withholding state bills – Bar and Bench

New Delhi, April 12: Regarding the constitutional role of the President and Governors in the State legislative process, the Supreme Court of India has held that the President does not possess an absolute or pocket veto when a State bill is reserved for consideration under Article 201 of the Constitution. As reported by Bar and Bench, the Court emphasised that the President’s decision must conform to constitutional discipline and is subject to judicial review. The judgment, delivered on April 8 and uploaded on the Court’s website on April 11, came in the case The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan laid down the contours of how Articles 200 and 201 are to be interpreted and applied.

Key Findings as Reported by Bar and Bench:

Presidential assent subject to judicial review

The Court noted that “the discharge of functions by the President under Article 201 are amenable to judicial review.” While acknowledging that the President has a limited political discretion under Article 201, the Court maintained that such discretion is not unbounded, as reported by Bar and Bench, The Court observed that: “Where the bill… pertains to a subject matter over which primacy lies with the Union, the limited grounds for judicial review would include arbitrariness and malafides. Where the bill lies within the State’s legislative domain, and is reserved by the Governor contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, courts may examine both the reasons for withholding assent and their legal sustainability.”

No absolute or pocket veto; three-month time frame

As underlined by Bar and Bench, the Bench clarified that the President must exercise one of the two options provided under Article 201—either to assent or withhold assent. There is no scope for an indefinite delay, commonly referred to as a pocket veto. The Court stated: “The President is required to take a decision on the bills within a period of three months… Any delay beyond this period must be accompanied by appropriate reasons communicated to the concerned State.”

Caution against piecemeal use of the proviso to Article 201

The Court also ruled that the power under the proviso to Article 201—allowing the President to return a bill (other than a money bill) to the State legislature for reconsideration—should not be exercised in a piecemeal or repetitive manner.

As quoted by Bar and Bench, the judges warned: “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… between the President… and the State Legislature.” Once a bill is reconsidered and passed again by the State legislature, the President is expected to take a final decision. Even then, the power to withhold assent is not absolute. “…If he [the President] chooses to withhold his assent, the bill will not take birth as law. However… the President would be required to assign clear and sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving at such a decision,” the Court held.

Implications: This judgment affirms judicial oversight over executive discretion in legislative processes and is expected to have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations. By insisting on transparency, time-bound decision-making, and constitutional compliance, the Court has highlighted the principles of cooperative federalism and accountability.