Good for federalism: Sibal hails SC ruling on setting timeline for governors to act on bills

New Delhi: Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Saturday hailed the Supreme Court for setting a timeline for governors to act on bills passed by state assemblies and said it is a "historic" verdict "good for federalism" as it defines the role of governors.

In a major victory to DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, the Supreme Court last Tuesday cleared 10 bills that were stalled and reserved by Governor R N Ravi for President's consideration.

The court also set a timeline for governors to act on bills passed by state assemblies.

Hailing the ruling at a press conference here on Saturday, Sibal said this ensures that the federal structure will move forward under principles of the Constitution.

The ruling also defines the governor's role, Sibal said.

"The Supreme Court has recently pronounced a historic judgement. It is in discussion because ever since the BJP government came to power (at the Centre), the governors have started acting arbitrarily. Whenever a bill is passed and the Governor's signature is required, the Governor would keep the bill at his end and delay it. They would not sign, hence the notification would not happen. People would suffer," the senior advocate said.

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.