The President’s recourse to Article 143 also palliates any apprehensions of bias or mala fides in the Central government’s approach to Bills reserved under Article 200, the Supreme Court said.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Supreme Court has put the President on a three-month deadline to decide whether or not to assent to State Bills referred to her by a Governor. The clock would begin ticking from the day the Governor referred the Bill to the President for her consideration.
“In case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the State concerned,” the apex court held in an April 8 judgment. The States, in turn, must be cooperative to any queries or suggestions from the Centre on the Bills.
EDITORIAL | Legal milestone: The Supreme Court and the Tamil Nadu Governor
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan declared that the President ought to, as a measure of prudence, seek the Supreme Court’s advice on Bills reserved by a Governor for her consideration on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality.
The 414-page judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala said the need for the President consulting the Supreme Court on Bills referred to her by the Governor was necessary as there was no mechanism at the State level for Governors to refer Bills to constitutional courts for their advice or opinion.
Also Read | Supreme Court asks Tamil Nadu Governor why he did not let State know his objections on Bills
“We are of the considered view that although the option to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court under Article 143 [of the Constitution] may not be mandatory, yet the President, as a measure of prudence, ought to seek an opinion with respect to Bills reserved for the consideration of the President on grounds of perceived unconstitutionality. This is all the more necessary as there is no mechanism at the State level for the Governor to refer Bills to the constitutional courts for their advice or opinion thereupon,” the judgment observed.
The judgment was based on a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu against its Governor R.N. Ravi. The court has held the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to reserve 10 Bills to the President for her consideration after sitting over them for months “erroneous in law”.
Also Read | Tamil Nadu government notifies 10 Acts, following Supreme Court verdict
The President’s recourse to Article 143 also palliates any apprehensions of bias or mala fides in the Central government’s approach to Bills reserved under Article 200, the court reasoned.
In this context, Justice Pardiwala drew attention to the neighbouring island nation of Sri Lanka where the President referred Bills to the Supreme Court for opinion. “If the Governor is of the opinion that a statute enacted by a provincial council is unconstitutional, then he may refer the Bill to the President who in turn is obligated to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka for obtaining pronouncement on the constitutional vires of such a Bill. Where the Supreme Court holds the statute to be constitutional, then the Governor is bound to grant assent,” Justice Pardiwala detailed.
Also Read | Supreme Court prescribes time limits for Governors to act on Bills
Constitutional courts cannot be precluded from making suggestions or opining about the constitutional validity of a Bill before the same became law. Application of judicial mind to a proposed law saves both time and public resources by preventing costly litigation and delay that naturally follows if a faulty Bill becomes a law. Besides, the legislature would get a second chance at reviewing the Bill to take appropriate corrective measures.
However, the court warned, this “approach of prevention before cure” must not be stretched to extent that the process of reservation of a Bill for consideration of the President by itself becomes a resort for thwarting the legislative powers of the States.
Published – April 12, 2025 01:56 pm IST