Which of the following statements is not correct about the Pocket Veto of the President?
Last updated May 13, 2026
Correct Answer:
Option A —
The President can either give his/her assent to a money bill or withhold his assent to a money bill but cannot return it for reconsideration of the Parliament.
Why is Statement A the "Not Correct" one?
While Statement A is a true fact regarding the President's power over Money Bills, it does not describe the Pocket Veto. It describes the President's specific constraints regarding a Money Bill (which is introduced with his prior recommendation).
The question asks for a statement that is not correct about the Pocket Veto. Statements B, C, and D are all accurate descriptions or historical examples of the Pocket Veto itself.
Understanding the Pocket Veto
The Pocket Veto is one of the three types of vetoes enjoyed by the Indian President (Absolute, Suspensive, and Pocket).
Mechanism (Statement B & C): In India, the Constitution does not prescribe a time limit within which the President has to take action on a bill. By simply not signing, not rejecting, and not returning the bill, the President effectively "pockets" it indefinitely.
Historical Example (Statement D): In 1986, President Giani Zail Singh used the Pocket Veto for the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill, which was criticized for infringing on the privacy of communication. By taking no action, he allowed the bill to lapse when the government changed.
Comparison with USA: The Indian "pocket" is deeper than the American one. In the USA, the President must return a bill within 10 days; if they don't, it becomes law. In India, the lack of a timeline allows for a true indefinite delay.
Important Note: The President has no veto power in respect of Constitutional Amendment Bills (24th Amendment Act, 1971 made it obligatory for the President to give assent).
Answer verified by Quintessence Classes faculty — Karan Nagar, Srinagar.
