New Delhi, April 12 After the Supreme Court set timelines for both the President and Governors to act on Bills, senior advocate Kapil Sibal on Saturday termed it a historic judgment.
“This is a historic judgment. Now, several issues pending before the Supreme Court related to the governor’s discretion will also be decided,” Sibal said at a press conference here on Saturday.
While resolving a long-standing constitutional impasse in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that the President must take a decision within three months on any Bill reserved for his consideration by a Governor. In a significant move, the Court also laid down specific timelines for gubernatorial actions on state Bills.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated in the judgment, uploaded on Friday evening, "The President is required to take a decision on the Bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received."
If there is no decision within this time frame, states are entitled to file writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus against the President, the Court clarified.
Explaining the implications, Sibal said, “This verdict is crucial because ever since the BJP came to power, governors have often acted on their own whims. Even after a Bill is passed by the state legislature, governors have delayed assent indefinitely, hampering governance and impacting millions of citizens.”
Sibal alleged that such delays were particularly common in opposition-ruled states, and were intended to create instability. “This is against the federal structure of our democracy,” he said.
“The governor can still return a Bill for reconsideration, but now there’s a limit -- they can keep a Bill pending only for three months. If the legislature passes the Bill again and sends it back, the governor must act within a month,” Sibal explained, adding, “They still retain the discretion to refer a Bill to the President, but now even the President has a timeline to follow.”
Sibal also highlighted a striking observation from the judgment: “The more centralised the power, the greater the possibility of blood pressure,” he quoted the Court as saying.
In a decisive resolution of the Tamil Nadu standoff, the Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare that the 10 Bills withheld by the Governor were deemed to have received assent on the day they were reconsidered and re-passed by the legislature -- November 18, 2023.
The bench noted that the Governor had withheld the Bills for an “unduly long” period, in violation of principles laid down in the Punjab Governor’s case in November 2023.
“He seemed to have been weighed by extraneous considerations,” the Court observed.
Significantly, the Court held that once a Bill is returned, re-passed by the legislature, and presented again to the Governor, it is not open for the Governor to reserve it for the President’s consideration. Additionally, the President is now under an obligation to provide reasons for their decision, which must be communicated to the state government.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor