Trust governor will soon end MLCs nomination impasse: Bombay HC – Times of India

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday declared that the governor of the state is vested with an obligation by the Constitution to either accept or return the recommendation for nominated MLCs as made by the council of ministers, forming part of advice which he has to discharge “within reasonable time”.
What should be reasonable time depends on facts of each case, the HC held, but added that the “impasse” has to end in Maharashtra as eight months seems to be beyond reasonable time and hoped that a decision on nomination of 12 members of the legislative council (MLCs) be taken soon.
Observing that the governor is not answerable to the court, nor can the court issue him any directions, the HC bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni expressed “hope and trust” that things will be set right at an early date.
Council seats can’t be kept vacant endlessly, says HC
The Bombay high court said on the issue of nominations to the legislative council that “given the “gravity of the issue involved and necessity to fill up vacancies immediately and to subserve the aims of the Constitution, it would be eminently desirable if the obligation in the present case is duly discharged without undue delay.”
Rules of business bind both the government and the governor, the HC said on Friday. The judgment was passed on a public interest litigation filed by Ratan Luth, questioning the delay in governor B S Koshyari nominating the 12 MLCs.
“It is not impermissible to read an implied authorisation in the provisions of clauses 3 and 5 of Article 171 for the Governor to examine whether recommendees ought to be nominated,” the HC said.
On whether the governor has a “duty to speak”, the HC said, “We have held that if the saying that everything happens for a reason is to be believed, this court ought to assume that there were genuine reasons for the Governor not to convey his decision earlier.” It added, “However it is time that impasse is resolved. It is mature, sensible and responsible governance both at the Centre and in the States that the people look up to. Should there be any misunderstanding between two constitutional authorities or functionaries, the right steps ought to follow. Minor differences, if any, ought to be resolved including by a discussion between the Governor and the Chief Minister in the guiding spirit of the Constitution.” The HC said, “Indeed, if there are major differences, the same ought to be made known for ironing out the differences.”
Seats cannot be kept vacant endlessly, said the HC in its judgment, whether by justifiable cause and much to the detriment of legislative functions. The HC said, “duty of the Governor to speak and let CM know the reservations about recommendees, if at all, within reasonable time has to be read with section 10
(2) (c) of the Representation of the People’s Act with Article 171 (5) of Constitution, or else the statutory the legislative intent would stand defeated.”
Under Article 171 (3) (e) read with 171(5) of the Indian Constitution, “those nominated to the upper house shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following, namely, literature,science, art, co-operative movement and social service.”