New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set clear timelines for both the President and Governors to act on Bills, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal calling the judgment "historic" on Saturday. Speaking at a press conference, Sibal remarked that the verdict would have broader implications, including the resolution of pending issues concerning the governor’s discretion.
In a landmark decision addressing a long-standing constitutional deadlock in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that the President must take a decision on any Bill reserved for his consideration by a Governor within three months from the date it is received. Additionally, the Court set specific deadlines for gubernatorial actions on state Bills.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan made the ruling, which was uploaded on Friday evening. The judgment states that if the President does not decide within the prescribed three-month period, states can file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President.
Sibal emphasized the significance of the ruling, stating, "This verdict is crucial because, ever since the BJP came to power, governors have often acted at their own discretion. Even when a Bill is passed by the state legislature, governors have delayed assent indefinitely, hampering governance and affecting millions of citizens." He also pointed out that such delays were particularly frequent in opposition-ruled states, intended to create instability, which he argued undermines the federal structure of the country.
Under the new framework, the Governor retains the ability to return a Bill for reconsideration, but this must be done within a three-month period. If the legislature re-passes the Bill and sends it back, the Governor is required to act within a month. The Governor also retains the discretion to refer a Bill to the President, but now, the President must act within a set timeline as well.
A particularly striking aspect of the judgment, according to Sibal, was the Court’s observation: “The more centralized the power, the greater the possibility of blood pressure,” which Sibal quoted during the briefing.
The Court also resolved the Tamil Nadu deadlock by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It declared that the 10 Bills that had been withheld by the Governor would be considered to have received assent on November 18, 2023, the date on which they were reconsidered and re-passed by the legislature. The bench noted that the Governor had delayed these Bills for an “unduly long” period, in violation of principles outlined in the Punjab Governor’s case of November 2023. It also observed that the Governor appeared to have been influenced by extraneous factors.
In a crucial part of the judgment, the Court stated that once a Bill has been returned, re-passed by the legislature, and resubmitted to the Governor, the Governor cannot reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration. Furthermore, the President is now required to provide reasons for their decision, which must be communicated to the state government.
With IANS inputs