The Centre has raised concerns, through a Presidential Reference, about the Supreme Court’s decision to set a three-month deadline for the President to decide on State Bills sent by Governors under Article 201.
The Centre argues that the Constitution does not specify any time limit, so the Court should not impose one through a judicial order.
However, the SC clarified that it did not invent the timeline — it simply adopted existing Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) guidelines from 2016.
These Office Memorandums (OMs) were issued to avoid long delays in processing State Bills and prescribed a maximum of three months to make a decision.
The Court said the MHA guidelines already required Ministries to review and respond to Bills within set timelines:
15 days for concerned Ministries to send back their views.
One month max to send reasons for any delay.
Three weeks to decide urgent ordinances.
One month for State governments to reply to any objections.
The Court held that using these time limits would not violate the Constitution, as they are already part of the administrative process and help ensure faster decision-making.
It also referred to past Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission reports, which had recommended prompt handling of such matters.
The overall aim is to prevent delays and ensure that State laws are not held up indefinitely.
COMMENTS