SC’s 3-month timeline in Governor verdict was adopted from Centre’s own guidelines

Home » SC’s 3-month timeline in Governor verdict was adopted from Centre’s own guidelines

Background Context

Issue: Whether the Supreme Court can prescribe a time limit for the President to decide on Bills reserved by Governors under Article 201 of the Constitution.
Trigger: The Tamil Nadu Governor case, where excessive delay was observed in presidential assent.
Centre’s Objection: Filed a Presidential Reference, arguing that judicially imposing a timeline on the President lacks constitutional basis, as Article 201 is silent on time limits.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity ,Constitution)

Key Points from SC Judgment (April 8)

Not a New Timeline: The three-month deadline was not judicial innovation but adopted from existing MHA guidelines (2016 OMs).
Quote from Justice J.B. Pardiwala: “We deem it appropriate to adopt the timeline prescribed by the Ministry of Home Affairs…”

OM 1 – On Timeliness (Feb 4, 2016)
1. Main concern: “Undue delay” in President’s decisions on State Bills.
2. Directive: Final decision on such Bills to be made within 3 months of receipt.
3. Ministry-wise Coordination:
  1. Substantive issues → Relevant Central Ministry.
  2. Legal/constitutional issues → Ministry of Law.
  3. Ministries to respond in 15 days, or justify delay.
  4. Max delay for comment: 1 month – else deemed “no comment”.

OM 2 – On Objections (Also Feb 4, 2016)
- If any Ministry raises objections:
  - Must be shared with the State for reply/clarification.
  - State must respond within 1 month.
- Purpose: Keep Centre informed and facilitate timely presidential decision.

SC’s Interpretation

Article 201’s silence does not imply absence of accountability.
Timeline adoption ensures constitutional expediency, not overreach.
Guidelines reflect the Centre’s own executive understanding of timely action.
Timelines promote constitutional federalism and avoid legislative paralysis at the State level.

Commissions Supporting Timeliness

Sarkaria Commission: Recommended quick disposal of Article 201 matters.
Punchhi Commission: Advocated for clear timelines in Centre–State interactions.

Conclusion

SC Verdict: Judicially endorses existing administrative norms, not creating new law.
Implication: Puts constitutional pressure on the President and Centre to act swiftly on reserved State Bills.
Centre’s Challenge: Raises constitutional query on judicial limits, though the timeline originated from its own rules.