New Delhi | The CPI(M) on Saturday expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court's response to the Presidential reference, saying it will only "encourage the extra-constitutional powers governors are exercising in opposition-ruled states".

It claimed the top court's response "will not in any way check the assault on the rights of states that is ongoing due to the over-centralisation of powers in the hands of the Centre".

The Supreme Court last Thursday held that the court cannot impose any timelines on governors and the President to grant assent to Bills passed by state assemblies, but at the same time said governors do not have “unfettered” powers to sit on the Bills for "perpetuity".

In a statement issued here on Saturday, the Left party reiterated that the top court's opinion on the Presidential Reference was "disappointing", and said it is devoid of any constitutional checks and balances on the "arbitrary functioning of governors who are acting as political agents of the Centre".

"The Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the Presidential reference regarding the powers of governors under Article 200 of the Constitution is disappointing. It will not in any way check the assault on the rights of states that is ongoing due to the over-centralisation of powers in the hands of the Centre," the CPI(M) said.

"By stating that governors have discretionary powers in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature and no time limits can be set, the opinion will only encourage the extra-constitutional powers governors are exercising in opposition-ruled states," it said.

The Left party said "particularly retrograde" is the suggestion that a governor is not bound to give assent to a bill which has been adopted a second time by the state legislature after it was sent for reconsideration by the governor.

The governor can instead refer the bill to the President and thereby get it indefinitely delayed, it said.

"The only relief given is that in the face of a prolonged inaction by the Governor on a pending bill, there can be limited judicial intervention. This, too, is ambiguous and vague, since there is no definition as to what constitutes prolonged inaction or delay.

"The Supreme Court advisory is thus devoid of any constitutional checks and balances on the arbitrary functioning of governors who are acting as political agents of the Centre," the party said.