World
India
The central government is thinking about asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its recent ruling that set a time limit for how long the President and state governors can take to decide on state legislature bills. Senior officials revealed on Sunday that while no final decision has been made yet, the option of filing a review petition is being actively discussed.
“There is no decision taken yet but a review petition is being considered,” said a senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official did not mention when such a petition might be filed.
Another official said the exact legal grounds for the review still need to be examined, and discussions on the matter are ongoing.
Why the Ruling Matters
The Supreme Court ruling, which was delivered last week, laid out strict timelines for the President and state governors when dealing with bills passed by state legislatures. The court directed that the President must make a decision within three months once a bill is forwarded to him by a governor.
The judgment also said that if the President withholds assent on such bills, the concerned state governments have the right to directly approach the Supreme Court. This particular provision is another point the Centre is considering challenging, according to officials.
Aftermath in Tamil Nadu: 10 Bills Get Notified
The court’s decision had an immediate effect in Tamil Nadu, where the government quickly notified 10 pending Acts in its official gazette, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling. These bills had been previously withheld by Governor RN Ravi, who had sent them to the President for consideration. The top court, however, declared the Governor’s actions in this case as invalid.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in a 415-page judgment, which was uploaded to its website on Friday night. The judgment made clear that all governors must take action on bills passed by the state assemblies within a maximum of one month.
Court’s Clear Instructions on Bill Processing
In its judgment, the apex court stated, “We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs… and prescribe that the President is required to take a decision on the bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received.”
The court added that if there is any delay beyond the three-month period, the reasons must be recorded and communicated to the concerned state government. It also reminded states to cooperate by responding to questions raised and considering suggestions made by the Centre quickly.
The court rejected the Governor’s second round of reservations of the 10 Tamil Nadu bills, calling it “illegal and erroneous in law.” It stressed that once a bill has already gone through the proper constitutional process, governors cannot stall it again without reason.
States Can Now Challenge Withheld Assets
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that if the President decides to withhold assent for a bill sent to him, the state government has the right to challenge that decision in the Supreme Court.
“Where the Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the state government to assail such an action before this court,” the judgment said.
The court also stated that any unjustified delays by governors in giving assent to bills could be subject to judicial review.
“In case of either withholding of assent or reservation of the bill for the consideration of the President, upon the aid and advice of the state council of ministers, the governor is expected to take such an action forthwith, subject to a maximum period of one month,” it added.
A Closer Look at Constitutional Provisions
The ruling examined the constitutional powers of governors and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.
-
Article 200 outlines the choices available to a governor once a state legislature passes a bill. The governor can grant assent, withhold assent, or refer the bill to the President.
-
Article 201 explains what happens to bills that are reserved for the President’s consideration.
Justice JB Pardiwala, who wrote the judgment on behalf of the Supreme Court bench, gave detailed reasons why delays or misuse of these powers disrupt the federal balance and democratic functioning.
Impact Likely Across Several States
Legal observers say the ruling is likely to have a major impact in states like Kerala, Telangana, Punjab, and West Bengal—places that have also seen frequent clashes between elected state governments and governors appointed by the Centre.
The court warned all authorities, including governors and the President’s office, not to violate constitutional limits.
In strong words, the court stated, “No authority must attempt to breach the constitutional firewall,” and reminded all that “the governor’s office is no exception to this supreme command.”
