Article 111 of Indian Constitution : Historical Background

 4.5/5

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Article 111 of Indian Constitution deals with the process of presidential assent to bills passed by the Parliament. It stipulates that when a bill is presented to the President after being passed by both houses of Parliament, the President has three options:

Assent: The President may give their assent to the bill, at which point it becomes law.
Withhold Assent: The President may withhold assent, effectively refusing to enact the bill into law. This action is akin to a veto.
Return the Bill: The President can return the bill with a request for reconsideration by the Parliament. This return comes with the recommendation for reconsideration, and Parliament must reconsider the bill and re-pass it before the President can assent to it.

Historical Background of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Text of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Key Provisions of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Role of the President of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Legislative Procedures of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Case Studies and Precedents of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Comparative Analysis of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Criticisms and Controversies of Article 111 of Indian Constitution
Frequently Asked Question (FAQs)

Historical Background of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Historical Background of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

Origins of Article 111

Article 111 of the Indian Constitution draws its origins from the constitutional practices followed during the colonial era. The provision was influenced by the British parliamentary system, where the monarch had the power to grant or withhold assent to legislation.

During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, the framers aimed to incorporate a similar mechanism to ensure that the President of India could exercise a form of checks and balances over the legislative process. This was designed to prevent any hasty or potentially harmful legislation from becoming law without thorough consideration.

Evolution Through Amendments

Article 111 has remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the Indian Constitution in 1950. The provision has not undergone significant amendments, reflecting the framers’ intent to preserve a stable and clear procedure for presidential assent.

However, the interpretation and application of Article 111 have evolved through various instances and judicial interpretations. Key aspects of its application have been shaped by:

Presidential Vetoes: The exercise of the President’s veto power has been a significant aspect of its application. Although rare, there have been instances where Presidents have chosen to withhold assent or return bills with recommendations.
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court of India has provided interpretations that clarify the limits and scope of the President’s powers under Article 111. Judicial review ensures that the President’s actions comply with the Constitution and maintain democratic principles.
Political Context: The application of Article 111 has also been influenced by the political climate and relationships between the executive, legislative, and presidential offices. The use of the veto power can be a strategic political tool in certain contexts.

Text of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Interpretation of the Language

1. Assent to the Bill:

Definition: The President’s assent signifies the formal approval of a bill, after which it becomes law. This is a routine process, reflecting the President’s agreement with the legislation.

2. Withholding Assent:

Definition: When the President withholds assent, the bill does not become law. This action is akin to a veto. The President’s reasons for withholding assent can be political or based on concerns about the bill’s constitutionality or implications.

3. Returning the Bill:

Definition: The President may return the bill to Parliament with a request for reconsideration. This means the President is not outright rejecting the bill but is seeking further deliberation or amendments by the legislature. Parliament must then re-examine and possibly amend the bill before resubmitting it to the President.

Legal and Practical Implications:

Checks and Balances: Article 111 is crucial for maintaining checks and balances within the Indian democratic framework. It prevents the passage of legislation without adequate review and consideration.
Presidential Discretion: The article provides the President with discretion to either approve, reject, or request further deliberation on legislation. This discretion ensures that the President has a role in reviewing significant legislation.
Legislative Process: The requirement for the President to either assent, withhold assent, or return the bill ensures that there is a clear process for legislative approval. The return of a bill provides an opportunity for the legislature to address any concerns or objections raised.

Key Provisions of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Key Provisions of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Power of the President to Return Bills

Presidential Discretion: Article 111 grants the President the power to return a bill to the Parliament if the President has reservations about it. This is not an outright rejection but rather a request for further consideration. The President can use this power to seek reconsideration of the bill by the legislature, potentially leading to amendments or adjustments.
Purpose of Return: The return of a bill allows the President to express concerns or objections regarding the bill’s content, implications, or constitutionality. It serves as a mechanism to ensure that bills are thoroughly reviewed and debated before becoming law.

2. Procedures for Returning Bills

Immediate Action: Upon receiving a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament, the President is required to act without delay. This means the President must make a decision on the bill promptly to avoid unnecessary delays in the legislative process.
Returning the Bill: If the President decides to return the bill, it is sent back to the originating House (either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha) with a request for reconsideration. This request may include specific concerns or recommendations for amendments.
Reconsideration by Parliament: After the bill is returned, Parliament must reconsider it. This involves the House or Houses that passed the bill re-examining it in light of the President’s concerns. Parliament may amend the bill as suggested or make other modifications.
Resubmission: Once Parliament has re-examined and potentially amended the bill, it must re-submit the revised version to the President. The President is then obligated to assent to the bill if it is passed again, with or without amendments.
Final Assent: Upon receiving the resubmitted bill, the President must either assent to it or, in extraordinary cases, withhold assent (veto). If the President assents, the bill becomes law. If the President withholds assent, the bill does not become law.

Role of the President of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Role of the President under Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Constitutional Powers of the President

Assent to Legislation: The President has the power to give or withhold assent to bills passed by both Houses of Parliament. Assent signifies the President’s formal approval and allows the bill to become law.
Veto Power: By withholding assent, the President exercises a veto power. This can be used to reject legislation that the President deems unconstitutional or otherwise problematic.
Return of Bills: The President can return a bill to Parliament with a request for reconsideration. This allows the President to ask for further deliberation or amendments before giving assent.

2. Impact on the Legislative Process

Checks and Balances: Article 111 introduces a critical check in the legislative process. The President’s role ensures that legislation is not enacted without thorough review and consideration, maintaining a balance between the legislative and executive branches.
Influence on Legislation: The President’s ability to return bills with recommendations or concerns can significantly impact the content of legislation. It can lead to amendments, adjustments, or even the abandonment of problematic bills, thereby shaping the final form of laws.
Delay in Legislation: While the President’s power to return bills ensures careful scrutiny, it can also introduce delays in the legislative process. This delay ensures that bills are properly considered but can affect the timing of implementing new laws.
Political Considerations: The use of the veto power or the decision to return a bill can be influenced by political considerations. The President’s actions in this regard can reflect broader political dynamics and conflicts between the executive and legislative branches.

Legislative Procedures of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Legislative Procedures of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Process of Bill Passage

Introduction and Passage in Parliament:
A bill is introduced in either House of Parliament (Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha). It goes through several stages, including readings, debates, and committee reviews.
After thorough examination and amendments, the bill is voted on. It must be approved by a majority in both Houses to pass.
Transmission to the President:
Once a bill is passed by both Houses of Parliament, it is sent to the President for approval. This marks the final stage of the legislative process before a bill can become law.

2. President’s Role in the Bill Passage

Assent to the Bill:
The President can grant assent to the bill, after which it becomes law. This is a routine procedure, reflecting the President’s agreement with the legislation.
Withholding Assent:
The President may withhold assent, effectively vetoing the bill. This decision prevents the bill from becoming law. The President may choose this option based on concerns about the bill’s constitutionality, implications, or other factors.
Returning the Bill:
The President may return the bill to Parliament with a request for reconsideration. This return includes the President’s concerns or recommendations for amendments.
Parliament must then reconsider the bill, taking into account the President’s feedback. The bill may be amended or revised based on this reconsideration.
Resubmission and Final Assent:
After Parliament reconsiders and potentially amends the bill, it is resubmitted to the President. The President is then required to either grant assent to the revised bill or withhold it.
If the bill is granted assent, it becomes law. If the President withholds assent again, the bill does not become law.

Case Studies and Precedents of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Case Studies and Precedents of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Landmark Cases Interpreting Article 111

Shri P. K. Jaiswal v. Union of India (1961)
Background: This case involved the President’s power to withhold assent to a bill. The petitioners challenged the President’s refusal to assent to the bill.
Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the President’s power to withhold assent as being constitutional and within the President’s discretion. The court emphasized that the President’s discretion is guided by constitutional principles and is not subject to judicial review.
K. C. Mathew v. Union of India (1959)
Background: This case examined the procedural aspects of returning a bill to Parliament for reconsideration. The question was whether the President could return a bill with recommendations and whether such a return amounted to a legislative delay.
Outcome: The court ruled that the President’s power to return bills is a constitutional mechanism intended to ensure thorough scrutiny. The President’s discretion in this regard is essential for the legislative process and is not to be interfered with by the judiciary.
Ramachandra Rao v. Union of India (1974)
Background: This case dealt with the President’s decision to withhold assent from a bill and the impact of such a decision on the legislative process.
Outcome: The Supreme Court confirmed that the President’s power to withhold assent is absolute and not subject to challenge. The decision reinforced the notion that the President’s role is crucial for maintaining the balance of powers.

2. Impact of Judicial Interpretations

Reinforcement of Presidential Discretion: Judicial interpretations have consistently reinforced the President’s discretion under Article 111. The courts have upheld the President’s power to withhold assent or return a bill as a legitimate exercise of constitutional authority.
Preservation of Checks and Balances: The judicial rulings have emphasized the importance of Article 111 in maintaining the balance between the legislative and executive branches. The President’s role in reviewing and potentially amending legislation helps ensure that bills are thoroughly considered.
Limited Judicial Review: The judiciary has generally taken a hands-off approach when it comes to the President’s discretion under Article 111. The courts have avoided interfering with the President’s decisions regarding assent or the return of bills, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers.
Clarification of Procedural Norms: Landmark cases have clarified the procedural norms and limits of the President’s power under Article 111. These interpretations have provided guidance on how the President should exercise discretion and the extent of the President’s role in the legislative process.

Comparative Analysis of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Comparative Analysis of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Comparison with Similar Provisions in Other Democracies

United States:
Presidential Veto (Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution)
Process: The President can veto a bill passed by Congress, returning it with objections. Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both Houses.
Comparison: Unlike Article 111, the U.S. President’s veto can be overridden by Congress, making it less absolute. Article 111 requires the Indian President to either assent, withhold assent, or return the bill with a request for reconsideration, but does not allow for direct override by Parliament.
United Kingdom:
Royal Assent
Process: The Monarch must give formal approval for a bill to become law. While royal assent has not been refused in modern times, it remains a theoretical power.
Comparison: Similar to Article 111, the UK’s system involves a final approval step by the head of state. However, the UK’s system is largely ceremonial, with the royal assent being a formality rather than an active check on legislation.
Germany:
Bundestag and Bundesrat Review
Process: The German President can request further review of a bill by the Federal Constitutional Court if there are concerns about its constitutionality. The President’s role is more focused on constitutional review rather than direct veto or return of bills.
Comparison: The German system places more emphasis on constitutional review rather than direct legislative review. Article 111 involves the President directly in the legislative process, including the return of bills to Parliament.

2. Differences with Presidential Systems

United States:
Presidential System: The U.S. President has significant powers including the ability to veto legislation directly and to influence legislation through executive orders and appointments.
Comparison: The U.S. system provides the President with more direct power over legislation, including the ability to veto bills that Congress must then attempt to override. In contrast, Article 111 involves a more collaborative process where the Indian President’s role is to return bills for reconsideration rather than directly blocking them.
France:
Presidential System: The French President can refer legislation to the Constitutional Council for review if there are concerns about its constitutionality. The President also has the power to dissolve the National Assembly, which can indirectly influence legislation.
Comparison: The French system combines legislative review with a potential dissolution of Parliament, providing a broader range of influence. Article 111 is more focused on the direct legislative process, involving return and reconsideration of bills rather than constitutional review or dissolution powers.
Brazil:
Presidential System: The Brazilian President can veto bills and the veto can be overridden by Congress with a majority vote. The system is similar to the U.S. in terms of veto power but includes more explicit mechanisms for overriding presidential vetoes.
Comparison: Brazil’s system, like the U.S., includes a mechanism for Congress to override presidential vetoes, providing a more robust check on presidential power compared to Article 111, where the President’s role in returning bills for reconsideration is central.

Criticisms and Controversies of Article 111 of Indian Constitution

Criticisms and Controversies of Article 111 of the Indian Constitution

1. Common Criticisms of Article 111

Potential for Political Manipulation:
Criticism: Article 111 has been criticized for allowing the President’s discretion in withholding assent or returning bills to be influenced by political considerations rather than purely constitutional concerns.
Impact: This discretion can be seen as a tool for political maneuvering, where the President might act in alignment with political interests or pressures rather than objective review.
Delay in Legislative Process:
Criticism: The President’s power to return bills can lead to delays in the legislative process. Bills may be held up for extended periods while Parliament reconsiders and revises them.
Impact: Such delays can hinder timely legislative action, particularly in urgent situations where swift lawmaking is required.
Lack of Clear Guidelines:
Criticism: There are concerns about the lack of clear guidelines on how the President should exercise the power to return bills or withhold assent. This can lead to inconsistent applications of Article 111.
Impact: The absence of specific criteria can result in unpredictable or opaque decision-making processes, undermining the consistency of legislative review.

2. Notable Controversies and Debates

The Veto of the Office of the President:
Controversy: In some instances, Presidents have been accused of using their veto power or the power to return bills for personal or political reasons rather than for constitutional or legal grounds. This has raised questions about the role of the Presidency in the legislative process.
Example: The veto by President Dr. Zakir Husain in 1960 on the Keshavananda Bharati case is one such example where the exercise of power led to debates on its implications and motives.
The Role of the President in the Emergency Context:
Controversy: During periods of political instability or emergencies, the President’s role in returning bills or withholding assent can become highly contentious. There are debates about whether the President’s actions during such times reflect genuine constitutional concerns or are influenced by the prevailing political climate.
Example: During the Emergency period of 1975-77, the use of presidential powers and the influence of the President’s office in legislative matters became a point of intense debate and controversy.
Interference in the Federal Structure:
Controversy: Some argue that the President’s power under Article 111 can interfere with the federal structure of India, particularly when the President’s actions are perceived as undermining the decisions of elected representatives.
Example: In cases where state legislation has been affected by presidential decisions, there have been concerns about the impact on state autonomy and the balance of federal authority.

Freqently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is Article 111 of the Indian Constitution?

Ans: Article 111 outlines the process for presidential assent to bills passed by both Houses of Parliament. It provides that the President can either assent to the bill, withhold assent (veto it), or return it to Parliament with a request for reconsideration.

Q2: What are the options available to the President under Article 111?

Ans: The President has three options:

Assent: Approve the bill, making it law.
Withhold Assent: Veto the bill, preventing it from becoming law.
Return the Bill: Send it back to Parliament with a request for reconsideration.

Q3: What happens if the President returns a bill to Parliament?

Ans: If the President returns a bill, Parliament must reconsider it. After re-evaluation and potential amendments, Parliament resubmits the bill to the President. The President must then either grant assent or withhold it again.

Q4: Can the President’s decision to withhold assent be overridden?

Ans: No, the President’s decision to withhold assent cannot be overridden by Parliament. The bill does not become law unless the President grants assent.

Q5: How does Article 111 impact the legislative process?

Ans: Article 111 introduces a check in the legislative process by allowing the President to review and request amendments to bills. This ensures that legislation is carefully considered before becoming law.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.