Unlike many countries across the globe wherein a provision for deemed assent upon the expiry of the specified time period has been made, there is no such provision in our Constitution. The only manner in which a temporal imperative has been weaved into the scheme of Article 200 is by the use of the expression “as soon as possible” in the first proviso.
Debate in Constituent Assembly on Article 111
The said expression, which also appears in Article 111 of the Constitution, was the subject of some debate in the Constituent Assembly.
Article 111, which provides for the President’s assent to bills passed by Parliament was originally numbered as Article 91 under the Draft Constitution and it provided a time-limit of six-weeks to the President to send back the bill to the House(s) for reconsideration. The Draft article read as follows:
“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:
Provided that the President may, not later than six weeks after the presentation to him of a Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill to the Houses with a message requesting that they will reconsider the Bill or any specified 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.”
During the Constituent Assembly debates, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved an amendment to substitute the expression “not later than six weeks” with “as soon as possible”. Further in the debate, Shri Naziruddin Ahmad advocated for a change in the aforesaid amendment and sought to substitute the term “as soon as possible” with “as soon as may be”. His contention rested on the reasoning that the phrase, “as soon as possible” which was introduced by Dr. Ambedkar in his amendment in place of the original wording used in Article 91, that is, “not later than six weeks”, imposed an unduly stringent obligation upon the President. He was of the opinion that “as soon as possible” mandates immediate action, thereby curtailing the President’s scope to engage in a careful and deliberate review of the bill presented for assent.
He expressed concern that such a rigid constraint could give rise to hasty decisions, devoid of any careful examination of the presented bill. In his view, the formulation ran the risk of undermining the quality of the President’s judgment under Article 111. He expressed his opinion as follows:
“[…] The Proviso is to the effect that “the President may, as soon as possible, after the presentation of the Bill, return the Bill,” and so on. I want to make it “as soon as may be”. If we leave it exactly as Dr. Ambedkar would have it, it leaves no margin. ‘As soon as possible’ means immediately. Possibility which means physical possibility is the only test. It may leave no breathing time to the President. The words ‘may be’ give him a reasonable latitude. It would mean, “reasonably practicable”. This is the obvious implication. That is the only reason why I have suggested amendment.”[1].
To avoid the aforesaid possibilities, Shri Naziruddin Ahmad proposed the adoption of “as soon as may be”, which he interpreted to mean “as soon as is reasonably practicable”. In his opinion, this change would allow the President greater flexibility and sufficient time to thoroughly examine the provisions of the bill presented to him. Such freedom would prove particularly valuable when the President contemplates returning the bill to the House(s) for reconsideration, especially in circumstances where amendments might be recommended. The essence of Shri Ahmad’s amendment was to safeguard the President’s ability to render well-reasoned and thoughtful decisions without any rigid time constraints.
Shri P.S. Deshmukh expressed his opposition to the amendment proposed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, deeming the suggested substitution of the words as unnecessary. He, on the other hand, argued that the original phrasing, particularly the expression “not later than six weeks”, ought to remain unaltered, as it established a precise time frame for the President to act accordingly. He further argued that this specific time frame mandated that the President must convey his decision to return the bill for reconsideration as expeditiously as possible, and in no event beyond six-weeks.
He opined that preserving the words “not later than six weeks” was quintessential to ensure timely action, thereby preventing undue delays in the legislative process to send the bills back to the House(s) for reconsideration.
Shri H.V. Kamath vehemently opposed the amendment put forward by Dr. Ambedkar. Advocating for expeditious and timely action, he argued that, “in human nature, if you will permit me to say so, unless there is a compelling sense of duty or service, there is always a tendency to procrastinate”.[2] It was his opinion that such tendencies to procrastinate must be rooted out by infusing a standard of duty or service to ensure timely action on part of the President. He further opined that there exists no assurance that every President of India will consistently adhere to the principle of timely action in legislative processes. Therefore, according to him, it was very necessary that the “Constitution should provide specifically a time limit for a contingency of this nature”[3].
He believed the phrase “as soon as possible” to be vague, purposeless and meaningless, and argued that such vague phrases have no place in a provision of such an important nature.
In light of the debate which took place on 20th May 1949, the proposed amendment to Article 91 was adopted by the Assembly, thereby substituting the expression “not later than six weeks” with “as soon as possible” and the same came to be added to the Constitution.
What can be postulated from this discussion of the relevant Constituent Assembly debates is that although our constitutional makers expressed their concerns for the possibility of an undue delay in the legislative process on account of the human nature to procrastinate, yet they nevertheless proceeded to adopt the phrase “as soon as possible” in the original Article. This adoption and amendment of draft Article 91 reflects a sense of inherent trust reposed by the Constituent Assembly that the President would execute his functions as enshrined under Article 111 of the Constitution in a timely and efficient manner.
The expression also came to be adopted mutatis mutandis in Article 200. The experience of the working of the Constitution, more particularly, Article 200, has shown that the apprehensions expressed by some of the members of the Constituent Assembly have unfortunately proven to be prophecy.
Reference
State of Tamilnadu v. Governor of Tamilnadu (2025)
[1] 8, CONSTITUENT ASSEMB. DEB., (May 20, 1949) 192
[2] 8, CONSTITUENT ASSEMB. DEB, (May 20, 1949) 194
[3] 8, CONSTITUENT ASSEMB. DEB. (May 20, 1949) 195