Supreme Court Sets 3-Month Deadline for Presidential Assent to State Bills
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2023) |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Key Issue | Delays in Presidential assent to State Bills reserved under Article 201 |
| Judgment Highlights | Established a 3-month deadline for the President's decision. |
| Constitutional Articles Involved | Article 201: President's powers on State Bills reserved by the Governor. Article 143: President's power to seek advisory opinion of the SC. |
| Key Interpretation of Article 201 | President must act within 3 months when a Bill is reserved for consideration. |
| Time-Bound Decision | 3-month deadline for President to assent or withhold assent; decision must be reasoned and communicated. |
| No "Absolute Veto" | President cannot indefinitely withhold assent; must justify with sound legal reasoning. |
| Recourse to Judiciary | States may approach courts (writ petition for Mandamus) if prolonged inaction occurs. |
| Article 143: Seeking SC Opinion | If Bill is reserved citing unconstitutionality, President ought to consult SC; advisory opinion is persuasive. |
| Governor vs. President | Governor must assent if Bill is re-passed; President not bound similarly under Article 201. |
| Policy vs Constitutionality | SC advises only on legal/constitutional issues, not on policy, socio-economic, or political matters. |
| Supporting References | Sarkaria Comm. (1988), Punchhi Comm. (2010), MHA Office Memorandums (2016) recommended time-bound decisions and Article 143 consultation. |