In the ‘State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu’ case, the Supreme Court has mandated a 3-month time limit for the President to decide on a Bill once it is reserved by the Governor under Article 201.
Key findings of the Judgement
- Limited Presidential Discretion:
- The Court emphasized that the President does not have a “pocket veto” — i.e., cannot indefinitely delay action on a state bill reserved by the Governor.
- The President must either grant assent or withhold it. There is no third option like sitting on it indefinitely.
- Support from Commissions:
- The ruling references the Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission recommendations, both of which advocated for timelines under Article 201 to ensure cooperative federalism and legislative efficiency.
- Role of the Proviso to Article 201:
- If the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may return it (via the Governor) to the State legislature for reconsideration.
- The State legislature must act within six months and resend the Bill. The President must then take a final decision.
- Finality Post-Reconsideration:
- Once the legislature repasses the Bill (with or without amendments) after reconsideration, the President must make a final decision — either to give or withhold assent.
What is Article 201?
Article 201 governs the procedure when a State Bill is reserved for the President’s consideration. It says:
- When a Bill passed by a State Legislature is reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent.
- Proviso: If it is not a Money Bill, the President may return it to the State Legislature for reconsideration and if the legislature repasses it, the President must make a final decision.
