16-05-2025
SC's three-month timelimit in TN Governor verdict was adopted from the Centre's own guidelines to avert delay on State Bills
The Centre, through the means of a Presidential Reference, has questioned the Supreme Court's decision in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to 'impose' a three-month timeline for the President to decide on State legislations reserved for consideration under Article 201 by State Governors.
The Reference wants the Supreme Court to answer whether a timelimit could be imposed through a judicial order on the President when the Constitution did not prescribe one under Article 201.
However, the Supreme Court's April 8 judgment made it clear that it was merely adopting guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) through two back-to-back Office Memorandums (OMs) issued in 2016 fixing a three-month timeline for the President.
'We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in the aforesaid guidelines, and prescribe 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,' Justice J.B. Pardiwala, who had observed in the Supreme Court verdict.
The recommendations made by the Sarakaria and Punchhi Commissions and the guidelines framed by the Central government had collectively called for expediency in the disposal of references made by Governors to the President under Article 201.
The first OM of February 4, 2016, reproduced in the pages of the judgment, highlighted the 'undue delay' caused in taking a final decision on State Bills despite clear guidelines.
'A time limit of maximum three months be strictly adhered to for finalising the Bills after their receipt from the State governments,' the OM said.
'The aforesaid memorandum indicates that the procedure involved after a reference is made to the President by the Governor…' the judgment explained.
The court detailed that the MHA, as the nodal Ministry, would refer the substantive issues involved in a State Bill to the appropriate Ministry at the Centre. Issues pertaining to the Bill's language, drafting or constitutional validity would be referred to the Union Law Ministry. The Ministry concerned with the substantive issues must report back to the MHA within 15 days. If there was a delay, the Ministry concerned must assign reasons for it. Any failure to do so within a maximum period of a month, would be understood to mean that it had no comments to offer.
'A perusal of the OM makes it clear that a timeline of three months has been prescribed for the decision on Bills reserved for the President. A time limit of three weeks has been prescribed for the disposal of ordinances of an urgent nature,' Justice Pardiwala interpreted.
The second OM, also issued on February 4, 2016, said that objections, if any raised by the Ministry concerned with the substantive issues regarding a State Bill, must be shared with the State government in question for its views or further clarifications.
'This is done with the object of apprising the Central Ministry of the clarifications of the State government on the matter. A time-limit of one month has been prescribed for the same,' the judgment had said.
The State government had to cooperate with the one-month timeline, the court said, as delay would have the 'ripple effect' of postponing the decision of the Centre on the matter.
'The idea of imposing timelines on the various stakeholders would not be antithetical or alien to the procedure that surrounds the discharge of constitutional functions under Article 201. The existence of the two Office Memorandums further substantiates such an interpretation. Afterall, no memorandum which is contrary to the substance and spirit of Article 201 can be allowed to command any procedure between the Union and the States The factum of its existence and acceptance reveals that the requirement of expeditious or even a strict time-bound action would be consistent with the aim and object of Article 201,' Justice Pardiwala had reasoned in the judgment.
