Context:

The Supreme Court has, for the first time, set a specific time frame of three months for the President to decide on state bills referred by the Governor under Article 201. This is a major development since no time limit was previously specified in the Constitution.

About Article 201 of the Constitution:

Article 201 allows the Governor to reserve a bill passed by the state legislature for the President's consideration. The President then has the option to:

·        Grant assent to the Bill, or

·        Withhold assent

However, the Article does not specify a deadline for this decision, which has led to prolonged delays in the past.

Key Points from the ruling:

·        The President must decide within 3 months of receiving a Bill from the Governor.

·        If there is any delay beyond 3 months, reasons must be recorded and conveyed to the concerned state.

·        Courts can intervene if constitutional authorities delay actions unreasonably.

·        The President’s decision to withhold assent must be backed by “sound and specific reasons”—they cannot exercise an “absolute veto.”

Background:

The court was addressing a case involving Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, who reserved 10 bills for the President’s consideration after they had already been reconsidered and passed again by the state legislature. The court found this act illegal and erroneous, prompting a broader examination of the delays under Article 201.

Why This Is Important:

·        Helps make sure Bills are handled quickly and not delayed for too long.

·        Encourages better cooperation between the central and state governments.

·        Reminds everyone that constitutional powers must be used properly, not unfairly.

·        Curbing arbitrary delays by constitutional authorities.

·        Reinforcing the legislative authority of elected state governments.

·        Establishing that the popular will, expressed through state legislatures, cannot be kept in abeyance indefinitely.

Relationship between the President and the Supreme Court

The President of India and the Supreme Court have a complex relationship defined by the Constitution.

Appointment of Judges (Article 124 and 217)

• Supreme Court Judges: The President appoints judges based on the Collegium's recommendations (Article 124).
• High Court Judges: The President appoints judges based on the Collegium's recommendations (Article 217).

Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143)

Article 143: The President can seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.

Dispute Resolution

• Election Disputes (Article 71): The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes regarding the election of the President and Vice President.
• Conduct of UPSC Members (Article 317): The President can refer matters to the Supreme Court for inquiry.
• Impeachment and Removal (Article 124(4) and 124(5))
• Judicial Accountability: The President is involved in the formal removal of Supreme Court judges, but only through a parliamentary process.

Conclusion:

The Sarkaria Commission (1983) and Punchhi Commission (2007) had recommended definite timelines for disposing of references under Article 201. The Supreme Court's ruling aligns with these recommendations, ensuring timely decision-making and accountability.