Veto

What is Veto?

**Veto** is the constitutional power of the **President of India** (or the **Governor** at the state level) to **withhold assent** to a bill that has been passed by both Houses of Parliament (or the state legislature). Without the President's assent, a bill cannot become law. The word "veto" comes from Latin, meaning "I forbid."

In everyday terms, even after Parliament passes a bill through both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, it must go to the President for approval before it becomes an Act. The President has the option to sign it (give assent), send it back for reconsideration, or simply hold onto it without acting — these different responses constitute different types of veto power.

Legal Definition and Framework

The President's veto power over bills is primarily governed by **Article 111** of the Constitution of India. The Governor's corresponding power over state bills is under **Article 200**.

Key Legal Provisions

- **Article 111 of the Constitution:** When a bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, it shall be presented to the President, and the President shall declare either that they **assent to the bill** or that they **withhold assent** therefrom. The proviso states that the President may, as soon as possible after the presentation of a bill (other than a Money Bill), return it to the Houses with a message requesting reconsideration. If the Houses pass the bill again with or without amendments, the President **shall not withhold assent**.

- **Article 200 of the Constitution:** The Governor's power with respect to state bills — the Governor can assent, withhold assent, return the bill for reconsideration, or **reserve the bill for the consideration of the President**.

- **Article 201 of the Constitution:** When a bill is reserved by the Governor for the President's consideration, the President may assent to, withhold assent from, or direct the Governor to return the bill to the state legislature. There is no compulsion on the President to act within a specific time frame.

Types of Veto Power

The Indian Constitution provides for three types of veto, though not all are explicitly named in the text:

#### 1. Absolute Veto

The President **withholds assent** outright. The bill does not become law. This power is theoretically available but is used very rarely because the President generally acts on the **aid and advice of the Council of Ministers** under Article 74(1). The absolute veto was exercised in notable instances:

- The **PEPSU Appropriation Bill, 1954**, where President Dr. Rajendra Prasad withheld assent.

- The **Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986**, where President Zail Singh withheld assent to a bill that would have expanded the government's power to intercept postal communications.

#### 2. Suspensive Veto

The President **returns the bill** to Parliament for reconsideration under the proviso to Article 111. This is called a "suspensive" veto because it only delays the bill — if Parliament passes it again (with or without amendments), the President **must give assent**. The President cannot return the bill a second time.

Important exception: The President **cannot return a Money Bill** for reconsideration. A Money Bill can only be assented to or withheld.

#### 3. Pocket Veto

The President **takes no action** on the bill — neither assenting, withholding assent, nor returning it. Since Article 111 does not prescribe a **time limit** within which the President must act, the President can indefinitely delay the bill by simply not responding. This is called a "pocket veto" because the President effectively puts the bill in their pocket and forgets about it.

The most prominent example is **President Zail Singh's pocket veto of the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, 1986**. The bill was never returned to Parliament and never received assent — it simply lapsed when the new President took office.

When Does This Term Matter?

In the Legislative Process

Every bill passed by Parliament or a state legislature must receive the executive head's assent before becoming law. The veto power is therefore a **critical checkpoint** in the law-making process. It represents the executive branch's role as a check on the legislature.

In Centre-State Relations

The Governor's power to **reserve state bills for the President's consideration** under Article 200 has been a significant source of friction in Indian federalism. When the Governor reserves a bill (often at the direction of the Union government), the state legislature has no remedy — the bill is entirely at the President's discretion, with no time limit for action. This has been criticised as a tool for the Centre to obstruct state legislation.

The Supreme Court in **Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831** held that the President and Governor must act on the aid and advice of their respective Council of Ministers, not on personal discretion, except in matters where the Constitution expressly grants discretionary power.

In Constitutional Debates

The scope of the President's veto power has been debated since the Constituent Assembly. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the President was not expected to be a mere "rubber stamp" but was also not intended to exercise veto power arbitrarily. The convention has been that the President acts on ministerial advice, but the absence of a time limit for action (enabling the pocket veto) remains a constitutional grey area.

When Money Bills Are Involved

For **Money Bills** (defined under Article 110), the President's options are limited — they can either assent or withhold assent. The suspensive veto (returning for reconsideration) is not available for Money Bills. This is because Money Bills are introduced only on the President's recommendation in the first place (Article 117).

Practical Significance

- **Final step in law-making** — no bill becomes an Act of Parliament without Presidential assent.

- **Constitutional check on legislature** — the veto power prevents hasty or unconstitutional legislation from becoming law.

- **Pocket veto has no remedy** — the absence of a time limit makes the pocket veto a powerful but controversial tool.

- **Governor's reservation** can delay state legislation indefinitely, affecting Centre-state relations.

- **Convention overrides text** — in practice, the President almost always acts on the Council of Ministers' advice, making the veto power largely formal rather than substantive.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the President veto a Constitutional Amendment Bill?

No. The President **cannot withhold assent** to a Constitutional Amendment Bill passed under **Article 368** through the prescribed procedure (passed by each House with a special majority). The 24th Amendment Act, 1971, clarified that the President "shall" give assent to such bills. This settled the controversy following the Supreme Court's observation in **Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)** and ensures that the constituent power of Parliament cannot be frustrated by the executive.

What is the difference between the President's veto and the Governor's veto?

Both have similar powers — assent, withhold assent, or return for reconsideration. However, the Governor has an **additional option**: reserving the bill for the President's consideration under Article 200. Once reserved, the bill is out of the state legislature's hands entirely. Additionally, when Parliament repasses a bill returned by the President, the President must assent — but there is no such compulsion when a state legislature repasses a bill returned by the Governor.

Has the President's veto power been used frequently?

No. The veto power has been used **very rarely** in India's history. By convention, the President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 74(1), and since the bill is usually introduced by the government itself, the question of veto rarely arises. The notable exceptions — the pocket veto by President Zail Singh and the withholding of assent to the PEPSU Appropriation Bill — are considered exceptional. The suspensive veto (returning for reconsideration) has been used occasionally, but even this is uncommon.

Can courts review the President's exercise of veto power?

The exercise of veto power is generally considered a **political question** and courts are reluctant to interfere. However, if the President's action (or inaction) violates a fundamental right or an express constitutional mandate, judicial review is theoretically available under Article 32 or Article 226. The Supreme Court in **Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1** held that even presidential actions can be subjected to judicial review if they are found to be malafide or unconstitutional.