Constitutional Crisis: 5 Shocking Impacts of Supreme Court’s Ruling That Limits Presidential Powers in India

The Indian government plans to contest a landmark Supreme Court verdict curtailing the President’s authority to indefinitely withhold assent to state-passed Bills, marking a critical constitutional clash. The April 8 ruling, stemming from Tamil Nadu’s dispute with its Governor, imposes a three-month deadline for presidential decisions on reserved Bills, effectively ending the “absolute veto” under Article 201. Critics argue this undermines a vital check against laws conflicting with national interests or the Constitution.

The Centre’s likely review petition cites procedural gaps, including the President’s absence during hearings, while contesting the Court’s use of Article 142 to enact stalled Bills—a unprecedented judicial override of executive authority. Historically, presidential vetoes blocked contentious legislation, such as Gujarat’s immunity Bill for convicted lawmakers. The verdict intensifies federal tensions, spotlighting Governors’ delays on non-BJP states’ Bills. The outcome could redefine India’s power balance, testing judicial boundaries and safeguarding constitutional safeguards against hurried legislation. 

Constitutional Crisis: 5 Shocking Impacts of Supreme Court’s Ruling That Limits Presidential Powers in India

In an unprecedented move that has reignited debates over India’s balance of power, the central government is preparing to challenge a Supreme Court verdict that redefined the President’s authority over state legislation. The April 8 ruling, which emerged from Tamil Nadu’s clash with its Governor over delayed Bills, not only imposed deadlines on executive decisions but also clipped the President’s long-held absolute veto power—a decision the Centre argues risks destabilizing constitutional safeguards. 

The Heart of the Conflict: Article 201 vs. Judicial Intervention 

At the core of this legal battle is Article 201 of the Constitution, which grants the President unchecked authority to withhold assent to state Bills indefinitely. Historically, this “absolute veto” has acted as a critical check against state laws that might contravene national interests or constitutional principles. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling mandates that the President must decide on reserved Bills within three months, effectively ending the era of open-ended deliberation.  

The Court’s use of Article 142—a provision allowing it to enforce decisions “for doing complete justice”—to directly enact 10 stalled Tamil Nadu Bills into law has drawn particular scrutiny. Legal experts note this marks the first time the judiciary has bypassed presidential assent entirely, raising questions about the separation of powers.  

Why the Centre is Pushing Back 

• Procedural Concerns: Attorney General R. Venkataramani emphasized that the President’s legal stance was never presented during hearings, a procedural gap the Centre may leverage in its review petition.  

• Erosion of Checks and Balances: Officials argue the verdict weakens a vital constitutional safeguard. For instance, between 2014 and 2023, the President withheld assent to 12 state Bills, often over concerns like federal overreach or conflicts with central laws. The three-month deadline, critics warn, could force hasty decisions on complex legislation.  

• Judicial Overreach Debate: The ruling amplifies longstanding tensions over Article 142’s scope. Former Supreme Court Justice Deepak Gupta previously cautioned that while the clause is necessary, its misuse risks “judicial legislation,” undermining elected bodies. 

Historical Context: When Presidents Used the Veto 

• 2016: President Pranab Mukherjee blocked a Gujarat Bill granting immunity to convicted lawmakers, deeming it unconstitutional.  

• 2020: Kerala’s Lok Ayukta Amendment Bill, criticized for diluting anti-corruption measures, was stalled for 18 months before assent. 

Such cases highlight the veto’s role in upholding constitutional integrity. Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia notes, “The President’s veto isn’t a mere formality—it’s a failsafe against subversion of national legal frameworks.” 

Federalism in the Crosshairs 

The Tamil Nadu case underscores a broader trend of state-centre tensions, particularly involving Governors accused of acting as “central agents.” Data from the PRS Legislative Research shows that between 2020 and 2023, Governors in non-BJP-ruled states like Kerala and Telangana sat on over 50 Bills for months, often prompting judicial intervention.  

Political analyst Yamini Aiyar observes, “This verdict attempts to curb arbitrary delays, but its collision with presidential authority risks a new phase of litigation. The challenge lies in balancing efficiency with constitutional checks.”  

What’s Next? 

The Centre’s review petition, likely to be heard by the same bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, could hinge on two arguments:  

• Procedural Lapse: The President’s absence from the original case.  

• Constitutional Interpretation: Whether Article 201 inherently permits indefinite deliberation or must yield to judicial timelines. 

Should the petition fail, experts speculate the government might escalate the matter to a larger Constitution Bench, setting the stage for a landmark reinterpretation of executive authority.  

A Delicate Balance 

While the Supreme Court’s intent to streamline governance is clear, its ruling navigates a tightrope between judicial activism and respect for constitutional mandates. As the Centre gears up for a legal showdown, the outcome will shape not only the fate of state Bills but also the evolving dynamics of India’s democracy—where efficiency and oversight must coexist.