Pramodor Kapil Sibal on Saturday hailed the Supreme Court for setting a timeline for the governor to act on bills passed by the state assembly and said it was a “historic” verdict and “good” for federalism as it clarifies the role of the governor.In a major victory for the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday last week approved 10 bills that had been stayed by Governor R N Ravi and reserved for the President’s consideration.
The court also set a timeline for governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures. Sibal hailed the ruling in a press conference on Saturday, saying it ensures that the federal structure moves forward under constitutional principles. Sibal said the ruling also clarifies the responsibilities of governors.
This used to happen in states where a party other than the ruling party at the Centre would be in power, and hence it was political, he said.
“We had been talking about this for years. I have been saying that it is against the federal structure. The leaders of the Centre tried to bring instability — it was seen in West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and many other places. Not only Governors, the Speakers would also act arbitrarily in Assembly. Now the Supreme Court has ordered against this practice,” Sibal said.
“Now the Supreme Court has decided a three-month time frame to send the bill back. When the bill is passed again, the Governor would be required to sign it within a month. The Attorney General opposed this saying a time frame cannot be mandated for Governors, but the Supreme Court denied it…
“The Governor would have the discretion to send the bill to the President, but the President would also have to follow the time frame,” Sibal said, adding, “This is good for federalism.”
In a first-of-its-kind direction, the top court on Tuesday fixed a timeline within which the Governor has to act on bills passed by the state legislature.
The apex court said there was no expressly specified time limit for the discharge of functions by Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution.
“Despite there being no prescribed time limits, Article 200 cannot be read in a manner which allows the Governor to not act on the bills presented to him for assent and thereby delay, and essentially roadblock law-making machinery in the state,” it has said.
Fixing the timeline, the bench said in case of withholding assent on a bill and reserving it for the President with the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the maximum period would be one month.
In case the Governor decides to withhold assent without the aid and advice of the council of ministers, the bills must be returned to the assembly within three months, it added.
The top court said if the state assembly presents the bill after reconsideration, it has to be given assent by the Governor within a period of one month.
The bench cautioned that any failure to comply with the timeline would make the Governor’s inaction subject to judicial review by the courts.
