The Supreme Court’s three-month schedule for governors in Tamil Nadu was adopted according to the Centre’s own guide

The first office memorandum of 4 February 2016 was copied in the Supreme Court’s page for the 8 April 2025 judgment, which highlighted the “improper delay” caused by the final decision on state bills despite clear guidelines.

The center, through the president’s reference, challenged the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tamil Nadu governor’s case, demanded that the three-month timeline be “imposed” for the president to decide on state legislation that the state governor has considered under the state legislation stipulated by Article 201.

The reference hopes that the Supreme Court will answer whether a timetable can be imposed on the president by judicial orders if the Constitution does not pursuant to a provision under Article 201.

However, the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 ruling made it clear that it only adopted guidelines through the Ministry of the Interior (MHA) through two back-to-back office memorandums (OMS), which released a three-month schedule in 2016.

“We believe that the timetable set by the Ministry of the Interior is adopted in the above guidelines and that the President must make a decision on the bill he considered within three months from the date of receipt of this reference, “jb pardiwala jb pardiwala,” JB Pardiwala, who had known in the Supreme Review.

The recommendations made by the Sarkaria and Punchhi committees and the guidelines formed by the central government jointly call for a stopgap measure to deal with references submitted by the governor to the President under Article 201, 201.

The first OM on February 4, 2016 was copied on the judgment page, which caused an “improper delay” in making the final decision on the national bill despite clear guidelines.

“The three-month time limit is strictly followed to finalize the bill after receiving it from the state government,” OM said.

The verdict explained: “The above memorandum shows that the procedure involved after the governor mentioned the president…”

The court detailed that as a node department, the MHA will forward substantive issues involved in the state bills involved to the appropriate department of the center. Issues related to the effectiveness of the bill, drafting or constitution will be forwarded to the Union Law Department. Departments related to substantive issues must report to the MHA within 15 days. If there is a delay, the relevant department must assign reasons. Anything that hasn’t done this for the longest time in a month will be understood to mean it hasn’t commented.

Judge Padivara explained: “A careful study of OM clearly shows that a three-month timeline has been set for the decision of the bill that the president reserves. A three-week time limit has been issued to deal with the statute of the emergency nature.”

The second OM was also released on February 4, 2016, saying that if any objections raised on substantive issues related to the relevant state bills must be shared with the relevant state government in recognition of their opinions or further clarification.

“This is done by the purpose of notifying the Central Department of the State Government to clarify the Central Department. It was held for a month,” the verdict said.

The court said the state government must work with a one-month schedule because delays will have a “ripple effect” of delaying the center’s decision.

“The idea of ​​imposing a timetable on various stakeholders is not contrary or alien to the procedure surrounding the release of the Constitutional Function of Article 201. The existence of the memorials of the two offices further confirms this interpretation. After all, memorandums that constitute any procedure in Article 201 are not allowed, and the attitudes that constitute it, and the facts of the facts that are acceptable. Justice Padivara made the justification in the judgment.