SC Sets Deadline for Presidential Assent on Bills; AG Says President Was Not Heard

In response to the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills referred by the Governor, Attorney General R Venkataramani told The Indian Express that the President was not heard in the matter and should have been.

The verdict, delivered on April 8, 2025, by a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, addresses the delay in granting assent to Bills by both Governors and the President. The AG said:

“The President was not heard. The President should have been heard… She was not in the picture at all.”

When asked whether this could be a ground for seeking a review of the judgment, the AG said that decision has “not yet been made.”

However, former Attorney General KK Venugopal backed the SC’s stand, saying the court was right in equating the roles of the Governor and the President when it comes to the legislative process. He explained that while Article 200 deals with the Governor’s decision on Bills, Article 201 concerns the President’s role when a Bill is reserved by the Governor. He pointed out:

“The Governor may have discretion, but the President must act on the advice of the Cabinet.”

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, also supported the verdict. He said the President’s role under Article 201 was directly involved, as the Governor had re-reserved Bills passed again by the state legislature. Three Bills were approved, but seven remained pending at the President’s level.

Dwivedi acknowledged the President was not a party in the case, but said that the AG had been issued notice. He argued it was unnecessary to issue separate notice to the Union, as once the court found the Governor's second reservation ultra vires (invalid), any further action by the President automatically became invalid too.

The court ruled that if the President fails to act within three months, a State Government may seek a writ of mandamus—a court order directing an authority to perform a legal duty. However, issuing such a writ against the President is rare, as Article 361 of the Constitution grants legal immunity to the President and Governors, protecting them from being held answerable in court.

Normally, in such cases, the Secretary to the Governor or the Union Home Ministry is made a party, not the President directly.

The SC’s directive could raise constitutional concerns about the separation of powers, as one organ of the state (judiciary) is setting deadlines for another (executive). A senior government legal officer remarked that this was a breach of “constitutional comity” and “disturbing.”

Interestingly, despite the AG now claiming that the President wasn’t heard, he had made submissions in court regarding the Governor’s powers during the case.

Also Read: Kerala Governor Slammed by CPI(M), Congress Over Remarks on SC Verdict on Governors' Role