SC Deadline on Reserved Bills

SC Sets 3-Month Deadline: The Supreme Court has mandated a 3-month deadline for the President to decide on bills reserved by Governors under Article 201.

Why the Deadline?: Delays stall state legislative processes, leaving bills in “indefinite abeyance,” violating the principle of non-arbitrariness. Lack of timeline has been a cause of differences in Centre-State relations

Presidential Action: The President must either assent or withhold assent within 3 months, providing reasoned justification for any delay.

No Absolute Veto: The President cannot indefinitely delay assent, effectively exercising an “absolute veto”. Decision to withhold assent should be based on sound and specific reasons, not arbitrarily.

State Recourse: States can file writ petitions (Writ of Mandamus) if the President fails to act within the deadline, compelling a decision.

Article 143 Consideration: If a bill is reserved due to unconstitutionality, the President should seek the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143.

President’s Discretion: Unlike the Governor, the President is not constitutionally bound to assent to a bill even if it’s passed again by the State legislature.

MHA Guidelines & Commission Recommendations: The SC referenced the Ministry of Home Affairs’ 2016 Office Memorandums prescribing a 3-month timeline. It also invoked recommendations from the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, which advocated for time-bound decisions on reserved bills.

Federal Structure: Undue delays would be detrimental to the federal fabric of the Constitution, necessitating reasonable time limits for Presidential action.

Extraordinary Situation: Article 201 is not ordinary law making procedure so far as the States are concerned. An extraordinary situation arises wherever policy considerations are involved in an otherwise State legislation but nevertheless having the propensity of a pan-country effect that is necessitated by the very quasi-federal nature of our polity