ASSENT TO BILL

SUBJECT: CONSTITUTION AL LAW – II

PROJECT TOPIC:
ASSENT TO BILL

Submitted By
Ashish Pandey
Roll no. 1520
3rd Year, 6th Semester, B.A.LLB (Hons.)

Submitted to
Prof. (Dr.) Anirudh Prasad
Faculty of Constitutional Law- II

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSIT Y, PATNA

|1
 ASSENT TO BILL

A C K N O WL E D G E ME N T

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide
Dr. Anirudh Prasad for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this project. The blessing, help and guidance given by him time
to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.
I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors, the library
staff and my friends for their valuable information and guidance, which helped me in
completing this task through various stages.
I would also thank my institution and my faculty members without whom this project
would have been a distant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and
well- wishers.

-ASHISH PANDEY

|2
 ASSENT TO BILL

AIMS A ND O BJ ECTIV ES

No stone has been left unturned to make this project a worthy task. To let it not go a futile
exercise every possible step has been taken. It is being believed by the researcher that it will
open a door of success in making many such academic researches and even better than it,
when needed.

It would quench the thirst for academic excellence and dealing with such wrong in real
life, if continued. Besides this it will also fulfill the desire of the researcher to contribute
services to the society. Furthermore, the aims and objectives of the present research paper are
as follows:
• To understand the natures of the power of President under Article 111.
• To critique the Re: The Kerala Education Bill Case.
• To trace the history of use or misuse of the power.

SOURCES OF DATA

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

1. Articles/Journals

2. Books

3. Websites

M ETHOD OF WRITING AND M ODE OF CITATION

The method adopted in making this project is the Doctrinal Method of research. Doctrinal
Study basically deals with theoretical study which includes use of Journals, Articles,
Newspapers, Websites, and Book etc. which shows in itself the very pattern of study.

This method of study is adopted because it is less exhaustive, less time consuming and
most importantly it deals with library study in general. And as a matter of fact, it is one of the
best of methods to be adopted so as to get authentic material and provides numerous
solutions to the problems.

|3
 ASSENT TO BILL

TAB LE OF CO NT E N T S

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................5

2. TYPES OF VETO OF PRESIDENT ............................................................7

1. Pocket Veto..............................................................................................7

2. Absolute Veto ..........................................................................................8

3. Suspensive Veto .......................................................................................8

4. Veto over State Legislation .......................................................................9

3. Legislative History of Presidential Assent................................................... 10

4. Assent to Bills: An Analysis ...................................................................... 13

5. Return of A non-Money Bill for reconsideration ......................................... 15

6. Conclusions & Suggestions ........................................................................ 18

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................... 20

|4
 ASSENT TO BILL

1. INTRODUCTION

When a Bill has been passed by the Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the

President and the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill, or that he withholds
assent therefrom. Article 111 of the constitution provides for this power. in the Constituent
Assembly itself. Unlike many other provisions of the Constitution, Article 111 in its draft
form commanded little comment or criticism. Members barely noticed it. In fact, the original
draft of the provision was even more skewed in favour of the President. The proviso was
differently worded: “Provided that the President may, not later than six weeks after the
presentation to him of a Bill for assent return the Bill … to the House with a message
requesting that they will reconsider the Bill or any specific provision thereof, and, in
particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may
recommend in his message, and the Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly”. This
proviso offered a specific time line within which to return a Bill. However, it said nothing
about the fate of returned Bills. In the Constituent Assembly, two changes were made. First,
the specific period of “six weeks” was substituted with the more amorphous “as soon as
possible”. B. R. Ambedkar, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, shepherded
this amendment. Second, and more importantly, the proviso was elongated to explain the fate
of Bills reconsidered by the two Houses and thereafter returned to the President. L. N. Mishra
proposed that the following words be added: “if the Bill is passed again by the House with or
without amendment and presented to the President, the President shall not withhold assent
therefrom”. Without these words, the proviso, he argued, was “incomplete and
inconclusive”. The Constituent Assembly agreed, and voted it in. With two amendments and
no further discussions, members, it seems, forgetfully voted Article 111 into the Constitution.
The Constitution of India provides for a federal framework of government with powers
divided between the Centre and the states. The federal concept as adopted in India has
considerable deviations from the concept of classical federalism. The Constitution confers
wider powers on the Centre than the states in the legislative, administrative and financial
fields.1 The law-making powers are distributed between the Parliament and the state
legislatures. However, the powers of the state legislatures are not coordinate and independent

1 Annual Report, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, 1994-95, p. 47.

|5
 ASSENT TO BILL

of Parliament in every respect. For instance, the Constitution under certain circumstances
prescribes the consent of the central executive for a state bill to become law. Further articles
200 and 201 empower the state governor—a presidential nominee—to reserve in his
discretion a bill passed by the state legislature for the consideration of the President who may
either assent or withhold assent to the bill.2 Thus, both under the mandatory and permissible
provisions of the Constitution the states have been sending bills for the assent of the
President. A study of such bills was made by the Indian Law Institute for the years 1961 to
1966.
After a Bill is passed by both the Houses of Parliament and is in possession of the Rajya
Sabha, a copy thereof is signed by the Chairman, and presented to the President for his
assent.3 Two assent copies are endorsed by the Chairman, or by the Deputy Chairman, if he
is performing the duties of the Chairman, with a certificate to the effect that the Bill has been
passed by the Houses of Parliament. One copy, after assent by the President is received in the
Secretariat and the other one is retained in the Ministry of Law and Justice through which the
Bill is presented to the President for assent. In the absence of the Chairman from New Delhi,
the Secretary-General may authenticate the Bill for the Chairman, (or for the Deputy
Chairman when he is performing the duties of the Chairman) in case of urgency.4

2 Ibid.
3 Art. 111; R. 135.
4 R.135, Proviso. For instances, see F. No. 6/9/93-B.
|6
 ASSENT TO BILL

2. TYPES OF VETO OF PRESIDENT

In India, the president has three veto powers i.e. absolute, suspension & pocket. The president
can send the bill back to parliament for changes, which constitutes a limited veto that can be
overridden by a simple majority. But the Bill reconsidered by the parliament becomes a law
with or without the assents of President after 14 days.5 The president can also take no action
indefinitely on a bill, sometimes referred to as a pocket veto. The president can refuse to
assent, which constitutes an absolute veto.
The President of India does not have it within his/her power to veto a bill passed by the
Government, headed by the Prime Minister.

1. Pocket Veto

There is no time frame within which the President must give his assent to a bill, when it is
sent to him for the first time. Therefore, by delaying his decision, the President can
effectively exercise a Pocket Veto, which will also scupper any further discussion on the bill,
since it has not been actually sent back for discussion. However, this is an extreme case, and
is generally not advised to the President. Indeed, it has been done only once in the history of
the Republic. The President cannot exercise a pocket veto on a financial or a constitutional
amendment bill.6 A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver that allows a president or other
official with veto power to exercise that power over a bill by taking no action (instead of
affirmatively vetoing it). In this case, the President can send the bill back to the Parliament
with recommended amendments, but the Parliament is under no obligation to accept these
and may send the bill back to the President for his approval with or without the suggested
amendments. In case the bill is sent back to the President for a second time, the President is
bound to give his assent to the bill within a fixed time period. Again, in this case, the
President cannot send a financial or a constitutional amendment bill back to the parliament
for re-consideration. In India, Article 111 of the Indian constitution stipulates that the
President shall give assent to a bill passed by both houses of the parliament or return the bill
as soon as possible for reconsideration with his recommendation.7

5 The Pearson Guide to the LLB Entrance Examinations , 2008.

6 Robert J. Spitzer, The Presidential Veto, 1988.
7 Abbas Hoveyda, Indian Government and Politics, p. 254, 2010
|7
 ASSENT TO BILL

The Indian Constitution does not give a specific time limit for presidential action on a bill
sent by the Parliament. Thus, by indefinitely postponing action on a bill, the president
effectively vetoes it. However, if a president receives a bill, he or she had previously vetoed
and sent back to Parliament, where such a veto has been overruled by another Parliamentary
vote, then such a bill becomes an act within fourteen days of the President’s receiving it
regardless of his or her subsequent action or inaction. Zail Singh, President of India from
1982 until 1987, exercised a pocket veto to prevent the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill
from becoming law.8 However, the Indian Supreme Court has not upheld the right of
presidents to veto bills in this manner.9

2. Absolute Veto

Absolute veto is when the head of the government (Crown/Viceroy/President) refuses assent
to any bill passed by the legislature. It cannot become law. In India there is no conception
like absolute veto however a veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations
Security Council, whose permanent members can block any resolution. Or it can be limited,
as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House
and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation. A veto gives power only to stop
changes, not to adopt them (except for the rare “amendatory veto”). Thus, a veto allows its
holder to protect the status quo.10

3. Suspensive Veto

Generally, a suspensive veto is the ability of an executive to return a bill to the legislature
without the bill becoming law. In the United States, the President can veto a bill the Congress
has passed. The veto is suspensive because the Congress can override the veto, given a large
enough majority. The opposite of a suspensive veto is an absolute veto, a power the President
does not have. However, if a vetoed bill is not re-passed by Congress, the bill dies, and the
suspensive veto, at that point, could be considered absolute.11

8 Zail Singh (Giani.), Memoirs of Giani Zail Singh: the seventh president of India, 1997.
9 Swapnil Tripathi Vs. Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1232 of 2017.
10 Chester James Antieau, The Executive Veto, 1988.
11 A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1985.
|8
 ASSENT TO BILL

4. Veto over State Legislation

If governor reserved a bill for consideration of President, then President can use any of above
veto power. But in case of suspensive Veto, if the State legislature is again passed bill with
simple majority then President is not bound to give assent to bill as in case of Union
legislation. The exception to this is, the President can’t exercise any veto on Constitutional
Amendment bill i.e. bound to give assent and in case of money bill, he can’t exercise
Suspensive veto either ratified or rejected.
Article 201 of the Constitution says that when a Bill is reserved by a Governor for the
consideration of the President, the President shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or
that he withholds asset, provided that, where the Bill is not a Money Bill, the President may
direct the Governor to return the Bill to the House or, as the case may be, the Houses of the
Legislature of the State together with such a message as it mentioned in the first proviso to
Article 200 and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider it
accordingly within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such message and, if it
is again passed by the House or Houses with or without amendment, it shall be presented
again to the President for his consideration Procedure in Financial Matters.12

12 Durga Das Basu, Constitutional law of India, 1977.

|9
 ASSENT TO BILL

3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT

Article 111 is not without significance. The President has at least two options. He or she may
assent to a Bill; ordinarily it is the least controversial option. Or the President may return the
Bill to the Houses seeking reconsideration.13 This is undoubtedly more controversial. It is,
after all, a public statement that the President disagrees with the preferences of the two
Houses. Depending on the circumstances, such a return may take censorial overtones against
the government. But when should the President undertake such an exercise? Article 111 sets
no definite time line. The provision merely commands the President to “declare either that he
assents to the Bill, or that he withholds assent therefrom”. If the President evinces interest in
returning the Bill, the proviso nudges him or her to do so “as soon as possible”. These
amorphous words clearly make “delay” an option. Similarly, a returned Bill does not enjoy
the protection of a specific time line. The proviso merely says that if both Houses re-enact the
Bill with or without amendments, the President “shall not withhold assent therefrom”. But
more crucially, is a third option possible? May the President sit on a Bill indefinitely? Unlike
the American provision on assent (Article 1 § 7), there is no assent by implication in India.
For a Bill to become an Act, the Indian President must affirmatively assent. That naturally
raises the tantalizing possibility of “death” – not just delay – by presidential inaction: May a
President kill a Bill by doing nothing? Even this cursory reading of Article 111 demonstrates
its invasive potential. And surely this makes its “forgotten” stature all the more puzzling.
The amnesia has a long history. It began in the Constituent Assembly itself. Unlike
many other provisions of the Constitution, Article 111 in its draft form commanded little
comment or criticism.14 Members barely noticed it. In fact, the original draft of the provision
was even more skewed in favour of the President. The proviso was differently worded:
“Provided that the President may, not later than six weeks after the presentation to him of a
Bill for assent return the Bill … to the House with a message requesting that they will
reconsider the Bill or any specific provision thereof, and, in particular, will consider the
desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message, and
the Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly”.15 This proviso offered a specific time line
within which to return a Bill. However, it said nothing about the fate of returned Bills. In the
Constituent Assembly, two changes were made. First, the specific period of “six weeks” was

13 Supra Note 12.

14 Ibid.
15 Durga Das Basu, Constitutional law of India, 1985.
| 10
 ASSENT TO BILL

substituted with the more amorphous “as soon as possible”. B. R. Ambedkar, one of the
principal architects of the Constitution, shepherded this amendment. Second, and more
importantly, the proviso was elongated to explain the fate of Bills reconsidered by the two
Houses and thereafter returned to the President. L. N. Mishra proposed that the following
words be added: “if the Bill is passed again by the House with or without amendment and
presented to the President, the President shall not withhold assent therefrom”. Without these
words, the proviso, he argued, was “incomplete and inconclusive”. The Constituent
Assembly agreed, and voted it in. With two amendments and no further discussions,
members, it seems, forgetfully voted Article 111 into the Constitution.16
The provision, though, did not remain forgotten for long. Sharp disagreements erupted
over constitutional provisions even before the ink had dried on the newly inaugurated
Constitution. Ironically, Article 111 was in the centre of that political storm. In July 1950,
Rajendra Prasad, India’s first President, wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime
Minister, questioning elements of the Bihar Zamindari Abolition Bill (a proposed law on land
redistribution) and signalling his reluctance to sign it. He was concerned about the
inadequacy of compensation for those whose lands effectively stood nationalised. Nehru’s
Cabinet pondered over the matter and decided that the compensation scheme provided for in
the Bill was fair. Prasad persisted. He wrote to Nehru again asking that it be delayed so that
the relevant ministries could reconsider his “strong convictions” on the matter. But when
Nehru threatened to resign, he gave in. He assented to the Bill along with a comment noting
his disagreement. But the second – and more protracted – battle came in September 1951
when Nehru sought to reform Hindu family law by legislation. Prasad immediately made his
objections to the Bill known, suggesting to Nehru that he reserved the “right to examine on
its merits” and take measures “consistent with the dictates of [his] conscience”.17 Alarmed
by the likelihood of presidential obstruction to a set of reforms dear to him, the Prime
Minister wrote to the President arguing that the latter had no “authority to go against the will
of Parliament”.18 Clearly, Nehru read Article 111 as a “routine” provision; the President was
to rubber-stamp his assent on Bills without applying his mind.19 And he lined up a battery of
lawyers to make the same point on his behalf. Eventually Prasad gave in. Nehru’s

16 Supra Note 5.
17 A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, Presidential Power, available at: https://presidential-power.com/?tag=a-p-j-abdul-
kalam, last accessed on 18.02.2019.
18 Nehru And The Hindu Code Bill, Outlook India, available at: https://www.outlo okindia.com›Website›Books,
last accessed on 19.02.2019.
19 Ibid.
| 11
 ASSENT TO BILL

overwhelming victory in 1952 (in India’s first general elections) meant that the President
could no longer press his personal objections; Nehru had the people on his side. A little
noticed provision in the Constituent Assembly effectively became the source of India’s first
major constitutional controversy.20
But once Prasad folded, the provision too, it seems, folded with him. It would take almost 40
years before Article 111 would be the source of controversy. It was 1987. The two Houses of
Parliament enacted the Mail Interception Bill which among other things gave the executive
extensive powers to intercept personal communication. President Zail Singh was
unimpressed. The provisions of the Bill, he felt, violated the right to privacy. He sat on it. On
two occasions, he informally suggested certain changes to it. When nothing came of those
efforts, he simply sat on the matter indefinitely. The President killed the Bill by sheer
inaction. Article 111 reared its head again; and the possibilities of that provision were on full
constitutional display.21

20 Supra Note 18.

21 Supra Note 17.
| 12
 ASSENT TO BILL

4. ASSENT TO BILLS: AN ANALYSIS

Assent of the President in India is provided in four specific articles of the Constitution and
each of these Articles represents an aspect of his authority. The general power of assent is
there in Article 111 of the Constitution. He has also power to assent to certain categories of
State bills in case these are reserved for his consideration by the Governor under Article 201
and this reservation is mandatory in case of "any bill which in the opinion of the Governor
would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the
position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill."22 Thirdly, Article 31 (3)
dealing with the Fundamental Right to Property clearly prescribes that "No such law as is
referred to in clause (2) made by the Legislature of a State shall have effect unless such law,
having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent." This
Article excludes the power of the Governor to assent to bills enacted under Article 31(2) in
order that these may have validity. Lastly, the President has under Article 368 power to
assent to bills providing for amendments to the Constitution wherein it is laid down that the
bill "shall be presented to the President for his assent and upon such assent being given to the
bill, the Constitution shall stand amended in accordance with the terms of the bill."23 The
Constitution Amendment Bill where ratification by the legislatures of not less than one- half
of the States is mandatory, shall be presented to the President only after ratification is
received from the States. These four Articles token together make the President appear in
three different roles. In Article 111, the President shall exercise his powers as a part of the
Union Parliament or as the Chief Executive of the Union. Under Articles 201 and 31 (3), the
President functions as the President of India in terms of Article 52 and under Article 368, the
President is the embodiment of sovereignty of India in exercise of which the constitution
amending power is put into use.24
When a Bill is presented to the President, he has option to declare, either (a) that he assents to
the Bill, or (b) that he withholds assent thereof,25 and (c) he may also return the Bill, except
a Money Bill, to the Houses with his recommendation for reconsideration of the Bill or any
specified provisions thereof and in particular introduction of any amendment that he may

22 From Constitution Files records maintained by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

23 Satya Prakash Dash, Constitutional and Political Dynamics of India, p. 142, 2004.
24 Ibid.
25 Article 111, Constitution of India, 1950.
| 13
 ASSENT TO BILL

mention in his message.26 In the first instance, the Bill becomes law. In the second instance,
the Bill is vetoed and cannot become law. In the third instance, if the Bill is again passed by
the Houses with or without amendment and presented to the President, he shall not withhold
assent therefrom.262
(a) Assent to Bill
The assent is given by the President in this form:
“I assent to this Bill.....President.”
If for any reason, the functions of the President are being discharged by the Vice-President or
the Vice-President is acting as the President or the Chief Justice is discharging the functions
of the President, necessary changes are made in the word “President” in the endorsement.
In 1961, twenty-three Bills, in 1965 one Bill and in 1982 three Bills were signed by the
Deputy Chairman and assented to by the Vice-President discharging the functions of
President; in 1977, eight Bills were signed by the Deputy Chairman and assented to by the
Vice-President acting as the President,263 in 1969, six Bills were signed by the Deputy
Chairman and assented to by Shri M. Hidayatullah (Chief Justice of India) discharging the
functions of the President.

(b) Withholding of Assent

The assent is withheld by the President in this form:

“I withhold assent to this Bill... President.”
The Salary, Allowances and Pension of Members of Parliament (Amendment) Bill, 1991, as
passed by the Houses of Parliament, was submitted to the President for assent by the
Secretariat. The Bill was received back in the Secretariat with the President’s endorsement
withholding his assent, through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice.264 The Deputy
Chairman informed the Rajya Sabha regarding withholding of the assent accordingly.265 In
the Lok Sabha the PEPSU Appropriation Bill, 1954 was returned to the Lok Sabha due to
revocation of the President’s Proclamation in respect of that State before the Bill could be
submitted to the President for assent. The Speaker made an announcement in the matter in the
Lok Sabha.27

26 Ibid, proviso.
27 Supra Note 23.
| 14
 ASSENT TO BILL

5. RETURN OF A NON-MONEY BILL FOR RECONSIDERATION

When a Bill which has been passed by the Houses of Parliament is returned by the President
for reconsideration, the point or points referred for reconsideration are required to be put
before the House by the Chairman and discussed and voted upon in the same manner as
amendments to a Bill, or in such other way as the Chairman may consider most convenient
for their consideration by the House.28 The Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986, as
passed by the Houses of Parliament was submitted to the President on 19 December 1986.
The President returned the Bill to the Rajya Sabha for reconsideration, especially clause 16
thereof (which, inter alia, sought to give power to the Central and State Governments or their
authorized officers to intercept or detain postal articles on certain grounds) on 7 January
1990. As the House was not in session, the message of the President was published in the
Bulletin.29 The Bill, as returned, was laid on the Table of the Rajya Sabha by the Secretary-
General on 12 March 1990 when the House reassembled. A copy of the President’s message
was also forwarded to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for information.30 Since then the Bill
continued to be laid on the Table of the House without being taken up for reconsideration, till
it was withdrawn on 21 March 2002. In this context, a question arose whether the Bill had
lapsed on the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha while the Bill was pending before the
President for assent and also subsequent to its return by the President to the Rajya Sabha and
pending there since then. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Ministry of Law and
Justice which opined as follows: The circumstances in which a Bill lapses are indicated in
clause (5) of article 107 of the Constitution. Article 107 does not deal with a Bill which has
been referred to the President for his assent. Accordingly, a Bill which is pending for
consideration of the President does not lapse even if the Lok Sabha is dissolved after the Bill
is referred to the President for his assent. This view is supported by D.D. Basu in his
Commentary on the Constitution of India (Vol. G., 1983, p. 38)31 drawing on the Supreme
Court decision in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala32 and also by M.N. Kaul
and S.L. Shakdher in Practice and Procedure of Parliament (1991), p. 176. Thus, the

28 Supra Note 17.

29 Bn. (II), 10.1.1990.
30 Ibid.
31 D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India (Vol. G., 1983, p. 38)
32 1962 Supp. (1) SCR 753.
| 15
 ASSENT TO BILL

dissolution of Lok Sabha will not result in lapse of a Bill which is pending assent of the
President.33
After the President returns a Bill in pursuance of proviso to article 111 of the Constitution for
reconsideration of the Houses of Parliament, the Bill is required to be considered de novo by
both the Houses. As indicated in the note of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the Indian Post
Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986 is pending in the Rajya Sabha. Even applying the principle
contained in clause (4) of article 107 which provides that a Bill pending in the Council of
States which has not been passed by the House of the People, shall not lapse on dissolution of
the House of the People, the present Bill cannot be said to have lapsed. Therefore, in any
view of the matter, the Bill under consideration which is now pending in the Rajya Sabha
cannot be said to have lapsed on the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha. On another
occasion, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill, 2006, as passed
by the Houses of Parliament, was submitted to the President for his assent on 25 May 2006.
The Bill was returned by the President, in pursuance of the provisions of article 111, with a
message for reconsideration of the Bill, which was published in the Parliamentary Bulletin
Part-II, dated 31 May 2006. The Bill as returned by the President was laid on the Table of the
House on 25 July 2006. The Bill was reconsidered and passed again by the Rajya Sabha on
27 July 2006. The Bill as passed by the Rajya Sabha was reconsidered and passed by the Lok
Sabha on 31 July 2006. The Bill was assented to by the President on 18 August 2006 and
became Act No. 31 of 2006. In the case of a Bill seeking to amend the Constitution within the
meaning of article 368, however, the President has no option but to accord his assent to the
Bill passed by the Houses by the requisite special majority.34 There is no time-limit laid
down in article 111 in respect of the assent to be given or assent to be withheld or return of
the Bill for reconsideration by the President. There have been instances when the President’s
assent was received on the same day when the Houses passed the Bill. For instance, the
Constitution (Seventy-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1991, was finally passed by the Rajya Sabha
on 12 March 1991 and it received the assent of the President on the same day. Similarly, the
Cancellation of General Elections in Punjab Bill, 1991, was finally passed by the Rajya
Sabha on 17 September 1991 and it received the assent of the President on the same day.
An assented copy of each Bill is laid on the Table by the Secretary General. In the case of a
Bill to which assent is obtained by the Lok Sabha Secretariat, the Bill as assented to by the

33 S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, p. 176, 1991.

34 Ibid.
| 16
 ASSENT TO BILL

President is authenticated by the Secretary-General of that House and supplied to the Rajya
Sabha Secretariat for being laid on the Table. A copy of the Bill duly authenticated by the
Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha, is similarly supplied to the Lok Sabha Secretariat when the
assent is obtained by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

| 17
 ASSENT TO BILL

6. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS

The practice shows that there is no special form of conveying assent However, the central
government while communicating assent has adopted the following methods: The first is that
assent is given by the centre without any reservations. Second is that in certain situations only
when the state government has adhered to the directions given by the Centre, has the assent
been accorded.5 Third, in certain situations the Centre has given assent subject to the state
incorporating the suggestions the Centre had given to modify the bill or to sponsor an
amending bill in accordance with the Centre's suggestions.6 'These instances outlined above
reveal that assent has not always been without reservations. At times, the assent was subject
to conditions. Does the Constitution envisage such conditional assent of state bills? Article
201 of the Constitution states that when a bill is reserved by a governor for the consideration
of the President, the President has three courses of action open to him : (i) he assents to the
bill or (ii) he withholds assent to the bill or (iii) in case of non-money bill he may direct the
governor that the bill be placed before the legislature for reconsideration in accordance with
his message to the Houses. Thus, when the central government has any reservations in
assenting to a state bill, it can direct the governor to return the bill with his message to the
Houses. Presumably, the governor's message to the Houses is to be in line with the central
government's suggestions for reconsidering the bill. However, it is not mandatory for the state
legislatures to comply with the suggestions of the Centre. If the bill is again passed by the
state legislature without any amendment in accordance with the Centre's suggestions, it will
again be presented to the President for his consideration. However, the study indicates that
only rarely does the Centre resort to the issue of formal directives under article 201. What in
practice it does is to informally give suggestions while communicating assent or accord
assent after the state has complied with the directions given by the Centre. The constitutional
validity of conditional assent to state bills is not free from doubt. It would seem that the
central government's action could only be confined to the options available to it under article
201 and not beyond that. The Constitution contemplates legislative autonomy of the states
subject only to the express limitations contained therein. The various grounds of central
scrutiny and the method of giving conditional assent suggest that the Centre while
communicating assent has tended to give directions to the states. However, the study shows
that assent has been withheld only in very few cases. Therefore, it may not be justifiably
stated that the operation of the assent provisions has affected the legislative autonomy of the
states. The practice of conditional assent would not in all probability have created stresses

| 18
 ASSENT TO BILL

and strains in the Centre-state relationship during the time when the same political party,
namely, the Congress party had formed the governments both at the Centre and the states.
But now with the change in the political scene after the 1967 General Elections, which has
led to the formation of Non-Congress governments in the states, the practice of conditional
assent to state bills may lead the central government to embarrassing situations. The Centre
may not have any coercive machinery to compel a state to comply with the directions it
issued while communicating assent.

| 19
 ASSENT TO BILL

7. BIBLIOGRAPH Y

BOOKS :
• Basu, Durga Das (2008). Introduction to the Constitution of India. Nagpur:
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa. p. 98. ISBN 978-81-8038-559-9.
• Shukla, V N., “The Constitution of India”, Lucknow, 12th Ed., Eastern Book
Co, 2013.
• Abbas Hoveyda, Indian Government and Politics, 2010.
• Robert J. Spitzer, The Presidential Veto, 1988.
• Zail Singh (Giani.), Memoirs of Giani Zail Singh: the seventh president of India,
1997.
• Chester James Antieau, The Executive Veto, 1988.
• A.V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1985.
• Durga Das Basu, Constitutional law of India, 1977.
• Satya Prakash Dash, Constitutional and Political Dynamics of India, p. 142, 2004.
• S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure of Parliament, p. 176, 1991.

RESEARCH PAPERS :

• Nehru And The Hindu Code Bill, Outlook India, available at:
https://www.outlookindia.com›Website›Books, last accessed on 19.02.2019.
• APJ Abdul Kalam, Presidential Power, available at: https://presidential-
power.com/?tag=a-p-j-abdul-kalam, last accessed on 18.02.2019.
STATUTES:

• Government of India Act 1935.

• Constitution of India, 1950.

WEBSITES:

• www.manupatra.com
• www.indiankanoon.com
• www.legalserviceindia.com
• www.jstor.com
• www.academia.com

| 20