Is President, per se, Accountable for Delays in State Bills Disposal?
Rashtrapati Bhawan, CJI Sanjeev Khanna, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar (Image credit X.com)
SC Tamil Nadu Bill Verdict: Modi Govt Faces Accountability Test
By R Narayanan
New Delhi, April 18, 2025: The Supreme Court judgment dated 8th April 2025 in the Tamil Nadu State vs Tamil Nadu Governor case has triggered an unprecedented uproar against the judiciary.
Most newspapers, editorials, and even some constitutional office holders have accused the Supreme Court of judicial overreach and usurpation of powers belonging to other branches of the State. Strikingly, none of them refers to instances where the Court exercised what has often been labelled as “judicial evasion” or “judicial restraint”— perhaps because such decisions suited their preferences.
Unfortunately, in both categories of criticism, the Apex Court is unable to publicly defend its decisions. What is saddest is that even constitutional functionaries — who are normally expected to refrain from criticizing the judiciary — have joined the chorus of detractors.
Critics of the 8th April decision primarily allege that the Apex Court usurped the powers of Parliament and State Legislatures, which are constitutionally supreme. The second major criticism is that the Court created a new constitutional mechanism by issuing a writ of mandamus to the President of India concerning legislative proposals referred by State Governors, in cases of unreasonable delay.
It is important to understand the context that led the Supreme Court to take such a drastic step. The Governor of Tamil Nadu refused to give assent to 12 bills passed by the State Legislature.
Following the Supreme Court’s intervention in a similar matter involving the Punjab Governor, the Tamil Nadu Governor hurriedly returned 10 bills to the State Legislature, without assigning any reasons. He sent the remaining two bills to the President for consideration under Article 201.
When the Tamil Nadu Legislature re-passed the 10 returned bills and sent them again to the Governor, he forwarded all of them to the President. Thus, all 12 bills remained pending with the President.
Those who criticized the Supreme Court’s intervention should be gracious enough to recall that the oldest of these 10 bills dates back to 2020. The current Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, elected for a five-year term, will expire in early 2026.
In other words, had the Supreme Court not invoked Article 142, all 12 bills would have lapsed — making a mockery of parliamentary democracy, a basic structure of the Constitution — not due to systemic failure but because of the actions (or inaction) of a single individual.
Is this situation unique to Tamil Nadu? No. There are eight bills pending with the Governor of Kerala, the oldest dating back to 2021. Another eight bills are pending with the Governor of West Bengal, the earliest from 2022.
Several bills are also pending with the Governor of Telangana, though the exact details are not available on official websites. Similarly, the number of state bills pending with the President is not published either.
This is the actual situation regarding the implementation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The principles of constitutionalism, constitutional morality, and rule of law speak for themselves.
Now let us consider the hype created by the press and some leading politicians about the role of the President. I will refer only to three constitutional provisions: Articles 74, 102, and 103.
Article 74 states that there shall be a Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, to aid and advise the President, who shall act in accordance with such advice.
If the President disagrees with the advice, he/she may send it back for reconsideration. However, if the advice is reiterated, the President is constitutionally bound to act upon it.
The question of whether such advice was given — and the content of that advice — is beyond judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the President of India can neither act without the advice of the Council of Ministers nor act contrary to it.
This applies to all powers — executive, legislative, ordinance — making, judicial, emergency-related, or any other.
There is only one exception to Article 74 — found in Articles 102 and 103. Article 102 deals with disqualifications for membership of Parliament. Article 103 provides that if a question arises regarding whether a Member of Parliament has become subject to disqualification under Article 102(1), the matter shall be referred to the President, whose decision is final.
However, before deciding, the President must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and act in accordance with it. In other words, Article 103 is the only provision where the President is permitted to act outside the advice of the Council of Ministers. This position is further confirmed in Article 77.
This is why, during discussions on the President’s Address in Parliament, members are not allowed to even indirectly refer to the President by name. There is not even an iota of truth in blaming the President for delays in the disposal of bills.
The bills referred by Governors to the President are, in turn, sent to the relevant ministries for examination. The stand of the Union Government is decided by the Union Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister.
The President plays no role in this process. To be precise, the President of India knows as much about the content of the bill as you and I do.
Thus, any critical observations made by the Supreme Court should not be construed as being directed at the President. They are clearly aimed at the inaction of the Union Government.
There is, however, one limited situation where the President may be involved. Article 78 of the Constitution imposes three duties on the Prime Minister: To communicate to the President all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the Union and legislative proposals, and to furnish such information as the President may request regarding these matters.
So, the Prime Minister might have shared the details about the pending bills sent by Governors. Beyond this, the President of India is not directly involved in any delay.
(This is an opinion piece; views expressed solely belong to the author)
Join the WhatsApp Channel of The Raisina Hills
Follow on Google News https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqBwgKMNK2vwsw39HWAw?hl=en-IN&gl=IN&ceid=IN%3Aen
About The Author
