Home Ministry to Challenge Supreme Court Order on President, Governor’s Role in Bill Assent Process

New Delhi | April 13, 2025 — In a significant development, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is preparing to file a review petition against the Supreme Court Order on President, which set a deadline for the President and Governors to act on state bills referred to them for assent. The order came in the backdrop of a legal battle involving the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, sparking a fresh constitutional debate over the role of constitutional authorities in state legislation.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, which acts as the nodal agency under Article 201 of the Constitution, believes the court’s verdict could set a precedent that disrupts legislative procedure, especially concerning the revival of lapsed bills and the role of the President in state legislation.

Supreme Court’s Stand: Governor’s Delay Deemed ‘Illegal’

On April 8, the Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s decision to withhold assent and reserve 10 bills for the President’s consideration was “illegal and arbitrary.” The Court further invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deem the bills as approved from the date they were re-submitted to the Governor by the Tamil Nadu state assembly.

“The action of the Governor to reserve the 10 bills for the President is illegal and arbitrary. All such actions are set aside. These Bills shall be deemed to be cleared from the date they were re-presented to the Governor,” the apex court stated.

Additionally, the verdict mandates that the President must act within three months of receiving bills from the Governors and record reasons for any delay. It also emphasized cooperation between state governments and the Centre to expedite the decision-making process.

Centre’s Concerns: Constitutional Balance at Stake

Sources in the MHA said that the decision to seek a review is rooted in the belief that the Centre’s arguments were not fully heard during court proceedings. Officials expressed concern that the ruling may open the door for the revival of ‘lapsed bills’, which under current norms, can only be reintroduced in the state assembly once rejected or withheld.

They also highlighted the crucial jurisdictional role of the MHA, which acts as a bridge between the President and state governments on such legislative matters. The officials noted that setting deadlines and automatic approval mechanisms could erode the discretionary and constitutional powers of both the President and Governors.

A Constitutional Conundrum

The issue has sparked widespread legal and political discourse, as it touches upon the delicate balance of federal power, the autonomy of state legislatures, and the constitutional responsibilities of Governors and the President.

Legal experts are divided. While some view the Court’s order as a necessary check on potential delays by Governors, others argue that judicial timelines imposed on constitutional authorities could lead to executive overreach by the judiciary.

What’s Next?

With the MHA moving forward with the review petition, the case is set to return to the spotlight. The development could also have wider implications for other states facing similar delays or disputes involving gubernatorial assent.

As the Centre gears up for a legal battle, the outcome will likely reshape Centre-State legislative relations, setting new norms for the assent process and constitutional checks and balances in India’s federal structure.

---