• In a constitutional milestone, the Supreme Court of India, through its 2023 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, addressed long-standing ambiguities surrounding Article 201 of the Constitution—pertaining to Presidential assent on State Bills.
• For the first time, the Court introduced a time-bound framework and clarified the scope of constitutional propriety in such matters, thereby reinforcing the values of cooperative federalism and curbing executive arbitrariness.

Key Constitutional Provisions Involved

Article 201: Empowers the President to grant or withhold assent to State Bills reserved by the Governor.

Article 143: Allows the President to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on legal or constitutional questions.

Major Judicial Pronouncements

1. Mandating a Time Frame for Presidential Action

• The Court ruled that the President must decide within three months of receiving a State Bill under Article 201.
• Previously, no deadline existed, often resulting in legislative deadlock.
• The Court emphasized that indefinite inaction is arbitrary and violates the Constitution’s spirit.

2. Prohibition of an “Absolute Veto”

• The President cannot withhold assent indefinitely, as this would effectively amount to an unconstitutional absolute veto.
• Presidential decisions must be communicated to the State and be legally justified, not based on political grounds.

Judicial Remedies for States

• States are entitled to file writ petitions (e.g., mandamus) in case of prolonged executive inaction on reserved Bills.
• This offers a constitutional check on executive delays, ensuring legislative sovereignty of State Assemblies.

Use of Article 143: Seeking SC’s Advisory Opinion

• In instances where a Governor reserves a Bill citing constitutional invalidity, the Court advised that the President should invoke Article 143 to consult the Supreme Court.
• Though advisory, such opinions are of high persuasive value.
• This mechanism would prevent the enactment of unconstitutional laws, thereby conserving judicial and legislative resources.

Governor vs. President: A Critical Distinction

• If a Governor returns a Bill and it is re-passed by the State Legislature, he is constitutionally bound to assent.
• The President, however, is not similarly bound under Article 201, reinforcing the need for judicial oversight in cases of delay.
• Policy vs. Constitutionality
• The Supreme Court will intervene only when legal or constitutional issues are involved—not when the matter pertains to policy or socio-economic discretion.
• This delineation prevents judicial overreach into legislative or executive domains.

Supporting Recommendations

Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010):

• Recommended fixed timelines for Presidential decisions under Article 201.
• Advocated invoking Article 143 in cases of constitutional doubts.

MHA Office Memorandums (2016) also prescribed a 3-month timeline, which the Court reinforced through this judgment.

Conclusion

• This judgment marks a transformative moment in Indian federalism by injecting clarity, accountability, and constitutional discipline into the often opaque process of Presidential assent.
• It restores balance between the Union and the States and strengthens the federal fabric envisioned by the Constitution.