Article 201

Article 201 of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for handling Bills passed by a State Legislature that have been reserved by the Governor for the consideration of the President of India. The provision ensures an essential constitutional balance between the autonomy of State Legislatures and the supervisory authority of the Union, thereby reinforcing the principles of federalism and constitutional oversight.

Constitutional Background and Purpose

The reservation of Bills for presidential consideration acts as a constitutional safeguard to maintain consistency between state and central legislation. It ensures that state laws conform to the provisions of the Constitution and do not conflict with central statutes, national policy, or the interests of other states.
This mechanism reflects India’s quasi-federal structure, where the Union Government retains a degree of control over state legislation to preserve national harmony and uniformity in law.

Assent or Withholding of Assent by the President

When a Bill passed by a State Legislature is reserved by the Governor under Article 200, it is sent to the President for consideration. Upon receiving the Bill, the President has two options:

1. Give Assent to the Bill: Once the President gives assent, the Bill becomes a law and takes effect according to its provisions.
2. Withhold Assent: The President may refuse to give assent, thereby vetoing the Bill.

The President’s assent is mandatory for a reserved Bill to become law. Without such assent, the Bill cannot take effect, regardless of the Governor’s or Legislature’s prior approval.

Return of Non-Money Bills for Reconsideration

Article 201 provides an additional mechanism for non-Money Bills. The President may, instead of giving or withholding assent, return the Bill to the Governor with a message requesting the State Legislature to reconsider the Bill or any of its provisions.
The President’s message may contain specific suggestions, amendments, or reasons for withholding assent. The Governor, upon receiving such a message, must return the Bill to the concerned House or Houses of the Legislature for further consideration.
It is important to note that Money Bills cannot be returned for reconsideration; they can only be either assented to or withheld by the President.

Legislative Reconsideration Process

When a Bill is returned to the State Legislature under Article 201:

• The Governor transmits the President’s message to the Legislative Assembly and, if applicable, to the Legislative Council.
• The Legislature must reconsider the Bill within six months of receiving the message.
• After reconsideration, the Legislature may pass the Bill again with or without amendments.

The reconsidered Bill is then presented once more to the President through the Governor. At this stage, the President may either give assent or withhold assent. Once the Bill is re-presented, the President’s decision is final, and the Bill cannot be returned a second time.

Role of the Governor

The Governor serves as the intermediary between the State Legislature and the President in this process. Under Articles 200 and 201, the Governor’s responsibility includes:

• Deciding whether a Bill should be reserved for the President’s consideration;
• Transmitting the Bill and related materials to the President; and
• Communicating the President’s decision or message back to the Legislature.

The Governor’s discretion in reserving Bills typically applies to situations where:

• The Bill contradicts the Constitution or central laws;
• It affects the powers of the High Court;
• It encroaches upon central subjects; or
• It raises questions of national importance or public policy.

This role highlights the Governor’s position as a constitutional bridge between the Union and the State Governments, ensuring coordination and compliance with constitutional norms.

Distinction Between Money Bills and Other Bills

A crucial distinction exists between Money Bills and non-Money Bills under Article 201:

• Money Bills: The President cannot return a Money Bill for reconsideration. They must either assent to or withhold assent.
• Non-Money Bills: These can be returned for reconsideration with or without suggestions for amendment.

This differentiation upholds the financial autonomy of the State Legislature while ensuring that non-financial legislation remains subject to constitutional oversight.

Judicial Interpretations and Key Case Laws

The Supreme Court has examined the scope of Articles 200 and 201 in several landmark judgments, clarifying the nature and limits of executive discretion in the legislative process:

• Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951): The Court discussed the legislative process and affirmed the constitutional hierarchy between Union and State powers.
• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (1952): The judgment recognised the Governor’s right to reserve certain Bills for presidential consideration, particularly those affecting property rights and constitutional provisions.
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although primarily concerned with constitutional amendments, this case reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine, which indirectly limits both Union and State legislative actions.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): Reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution and the necessity for both Union and State legislatures to operate within its framework.

These cases collectively underscore that the reservation process under Article 201 forms part of India’s constitutional checks and balances, preventing legislative overreach while respecting the autonomy of state institutions.

Federal and Legislative Significance

Article 201 serves several important constitutional and democratic purposes:

• It ensures that state legislation remains consistent with national and constitutional principles.
• It provides the President with an opportunity to examine the implications of state laws on broader national interests.
• It acts as a check on potential legislative excesses at the state level.
• It reinforces cooperative federalism, promoting dialogue between the Union and the States in law-making.

By giving the President oversight on reserved Bills, the Constitution upholds the idea of unity with diversity, ensuring uniformity in core areas of governance while allowing states legislative flexibility.

Practical and Political Implications

In practice, Article 201 has often been invoked in cases where:

• A state law appears inconsistent with central statutes or economic policies;
• Bills deal with land reform, education, or trade and commerce, affecting national or inter-state concerns;
• The Union Government seeks to review the constitutional validity or policy impact of proposed legislation.

However, delays in presidential assent have occasionally raised concerns about executive inaction and legislative stagnation. Critics argue that indefinite withholding of assent without communication undermines legislative sovereignty and efficiency. Courts and constitutional experts have therefore emphasised the need for timely decision-making by the President under Article 201.

Related Constitutional Provisions

• Article 200: Governs the Governor’s assent to Bills and empowers them to reserve Bills for the President’s consideration.
• Article 202: Deals with financial procedures and the introduction of Money Bills.
• Article 254: Addresses conflicts between central and state laws, underscoring the relevance of presidential scrutiny.

Constitutional Significance and Federal Balance

Article 201 embodies the spirit of constitutional cooperation and federal harmony. It ensures that the law-making power of the states functions within the constitutional limits prescribed by the Union framework, safeguarding national interests without undermining state autonomy.