Where President Exhibits Inaction In Decision When Bill Is Presented To Him By Governor, State Can Seek Mandamus: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that 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 the Court.
The Supreme Court in a landmark Judgment, held that where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a Bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 of the Constitution, the State Government can seek a Writ of Mandamus from the Court.
The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by the Tamil Nadu State being aggrieved by the action of the Governor on few issues of prime public importance, seeking appropriate reliefs.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Where the President exhibits inaction in making a decision when a bill is presented to him for assent under Article 201 and such inaction exceeds the time-limit as has been prescribed by us in paragraph 391 of this judgment then it shall be open to the State Government to seek a writ of mandamus from this Court.”
The Bench said that 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 the Court.
The Court explained the following important points –
• Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President on the ground that assent of the President is required for the purpose of making the bill enforceable or securing some immunity therefor, then in such cases the withholding of assent by the President would be justiciable to the limited extent of exercise of such power in an arbitrary or malafide manner. Owing to the political nature of the assent of the President in these categories of bills, the Courts would impose a self-restraint.
• Where a State bill has been reserved by the Governor, in his discretion, for the consideration of the President on the ground that the bill appears to be patently unconstitutional for placing the principles of representative democracy in peril, the withholding of assent by the President would, in ordinary circumstances, involve purely legal and constitutional questions and therefore be justiciable without any impediments imposed by the doctrine of political thicket. In such cases, it would be prudent for the President to obtain the advisory opinion of the Apex Court by way of a reference under Article 143 and act in accordance with the same to dispel any apprehensions of bias, arbitrariness or mala fides.
Senior Advocates Rakesh Dwivedi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and P. Wilson appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Attorney General for India (AGI) R. Venkatramani and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Vikramjit Banerjee, appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner-Tamil Nadu State was aggrieved by the action or rather inaction on part of the Governor of Tamil Nadu in discharge of the following functions –
(i) Withholding of assent to and reserving for consideration of the President, by the Governor of 10 Bills enacted by the Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu.
(ii) Inaction on files submitted to the Governor for according sanction to prosecute public servants and investigate various crimes of corruption involving moral turpitude.
(iii) Pendency of a number of files submitted to the Governor for premature release of prisoners.
(iv) Pendency of proposals submitted to the Governor for appointment of members to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under Article 316 of the Constitution.
The Legislature for the State of Tamil Nadu, between January 13, 2020 and April 28, 2023, enacted and forwarded 12 Bills to the Governor for grant of assent as per Article 200 of the Constitution. Even though the present Governor took charge of the office with effect from November 18, 2021, yet he did not take the necessary action on any of the said Bills forwarded to his office till October 2023. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction on part of the Governor, had to ultimately file the Writ Petition before the Apex Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the factual background of the case, noted, “Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court.”
The Court said that where the reservation is on the ground that the bill is of a description falling under the Second Proviso to Article 200 of the Constitution, it may be assailed on the ground that the bill or any provision thereof does not so derogate from the powers of the High Court so as to endanger the position which that Court is designed by the Constitution to fill.
“The Governor while reserving a bill on this count shall be expected to provide clear reasons and also point to the specific provision(s) of the bill which, in his opinion, attract the Second Proviso. This question being purely of a legal nature would be completely justiciable and the competent court would be, after a proper adjudication, fully authorized to approve or disapprove of such reservation by the Governor”, it added.
The Court clarified that if such a challenge finds favour with the competent Court, then, subject to any other considerations, it would be a fit case for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Governor for appropriate action and if, however, the challenge should fail then the mechanism envisaged under Article 201 of the Constitution will spring into action.
“Where the reservation is on account of the bill attracting any provision of the Constitution wherein the assent of the President is a condition precedent for the proper enactment and enforceability of such a bill as a law (such as under Article 364A2) or for the purpose of securing any immunity (such as under Article 31A) or overcoming any repugnancy that may exist qua a Central Legislation (under Article 254(2)), then the Governor is expected to make a specific and clear reference to the President properly indicating the reasons for such reservation and inviting his attention as described in Kaiser-I Hind (supra)”, it further enunciated.
Judicial Review Of President’s Power Under Article 201
The Court summarised its findings on the judicial review of the exercise of power by the President under Article 201 in withholding assent to a bill as follows:
a. Where the bill which is under consideration is pertaining to a provision of the Constitution where primacy has been given to the Union government in taking a decision keeping in consideration the desirability of having certain uniform standards of national policy, then the limited grounds of judicial review would be based on arbitrariness, malafides, etc.
b. Where the bill which is under consideration pertains to a subject matter or domain within which State legislature has been accorded primacy, and the reservation of the bill is by the Governor contrary to the aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers, then in exercise of judicial review the Courts would be competent to look into the reasons for withholding of assent and whether they are legally tenable or not, besides the grounds of malafides and arbitrariness, etc.
The Court held 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 and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State. It also elucidated that the States are also required to be collaborative and extend co-operation by furnishing answers to the queries which may be raised and consider the suggestions made by the Central Government expeditiously.
Conclusion
The Court, therefore, concluded the following points –
• The reservation of the ten Bills which are the subject-matter of challenge in the Petition by the Governor for the consideration of the President after their due reconsideration by the State legislature in terms of the first proviso to Article 200 being in contravention of the procedure prescribed under Article 200, is declared to be erroneous in law, non-est and thus, is hereby set-aside.
• As a result of the above, any consequential steps that might have been taken by the President on these ten Bills is equally non-est and is hereby set-aside.
• Having regard to the unduly long period of time for which these Bills were kept pending by the Governor before the ultimate declaration of withholding of assent and other extraneous considerations that appear to be writ large in the discharge of his functions, there is no other option but to exercise the inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution for the purpose of declaring these ten Bills as deemed to have been assented on the date when they were presented to the Governor after being reconsidered by the State legislature.
The Court at the end of the Judgment, remarked, “We hope and trust that the Governor and the State Government would work in tandem and harmoniously keeping the interests and well-being of the people as their paramount consideration.”
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the Registry to send one copy each of the Judgment to all the High Courts and the Principal Secretaries to the Governors of all States.
Cause Title- The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 481)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P. Wilson, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Preetika Dwivedi, Mohd. Yasir, Jahnavi Taneja, Poornachandiran R, Siddarth Seema, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna, Danish Saifi, Aravind A, and Saran Raghunadhan S.
Respondents: AGI R Venkatramani, ASG Vikramjit Banerjee, Senior Advocates Madhavi Goradia Divan, Nl Rajah, AORs Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mrigank Prabhakar, Advocates Prashant Rawat, Rashi Mangal, Kartik Dey, Abhishek Goel, Kanu Agarwal, Padmesh Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Chitvan Singhal, Raman Yadav, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ameya Vikrama Thanvi, Sonali Jain, Manoj Ranjan Sinha, Vishal Agrawal, Siddharth Sahu, S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Abhilasha Shrawat, T. Bhaskar Gowtham, D. Bharat Kumar, and Aarthi Raj.
