New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has once again found itself at the center of a massive controversy, this time for its audacious move to set a three-month timeline for the President of India to decide on bills reserved by Governors for Presidential assent.
The Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment addresses a long-standing dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, who had reserved 10 bills for Presidential consideration in November 2024, despite their reconsideration by the state Assembly.
The Tamil Nadu government had approached the apex court in October 2023, accusing Governor Ravi of “inaction, omission, delay, and failure” in handling bills, some of which had been pending since January 2020.
The court declared the Governor’s actions illegal and erroneous, emphasising that Governors must act within a constitutional timeline and cannot indefinitely delay bills, a practice often referred to as a “pocket veto.”
The apex court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to deem the 10 bills as having received assent, citing the “unduly long period” for which they had been kept pending and the Governor’s “scant respect” for prior court decisions in similar matters.
Notably, seven of these bills had been rejected by President Droupadi Murmu, sparking debates on “judicial overreach.”
Critics argue that the court’s use of Article 142 to clear bills encroaches on the executive’s domain.
Ajeet Bharti, a prominent commentator on current affairs, minced no words in his scathing critique: “Supreme Court has gone crazy. Started with pushing its legs into legislative domain to now even setting timelines for the President, while sitting on 80,000 pending cases, with no timeline whatsoever, Judiciary has come a long way. And unchecked. @PMOIndia needs to show them their rightful place.”
The court’s ruling goes beyond the Governor’s role, setting a clear timeline for the President. As outlined in the judgment, the President must decide on bills reserved by the Governor within a period of three months from the date they are presented.
If the President fails to act within this timeframe or does not provide reasons for withholding assent, a “presumption of lack of bona fides” arises, and the concerned state government can file a writ of mandamus to compel action. The court further clarified that the President cannot exercise an “absolute veto” or “pocket veto” on such bills, emphasising that the expression of intent through a declaration of reasons, as mandated by Article 201 of the Constitution, is of “paramount importance.”
Historically, the President’s veto powers have been exercised sparingly. Notable instances include President Dr. Rajendra Prasad’s veto in 1954 and President R Venkataraman’s in 1991, often in cases involving private member bills or significant cabinet changes.
The Supreme Court’s assertion that a delay in decision-making amounts to a “lack of bona fides” is a bold and contentious interpretation, one that critics argue erodes the executive’s discretionary authority. By setting such a rigid timeline, the court has risked overstepping its constitutional role, blurring the lines of separation of powers, a principle fundamental to India’s democracy.
While the court’s intent to streamline the legislative process is evident, its moral authority to impose such timelines is under scrutiny. The Supreme Court itself is grappling with a backlog of 83,312 pending cases—a number that saw a marginal reduction from 84,280 in July 2024.
/newsdrum-in/media/agency_attachments/2025/01/29/2025-01-29t072616888z-nd_logo_white-200-niraj-sharma.jpg){kind=logo}
/newsdrum-in/media/member_avatars/zo41uS3Lku9fCtPnBfvR.jpg )
Follow Us/newsdrum-in/media/media_files/2025/01/15/IlO5DQPa0dwRy2CZTVga.jpg)