Governors, Bills, and Judicial Review: The Supreme Court as the 'Custodian of the Constitution' | A Constitutional Conundrum
Relevance: GS-II (Indian Constitution - Separation of Powers, Judicial Review, Role of Governor, Basic Structure Doctrine); GS-II (Governance)
Why in News?
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, is hearing arguments from the Union Government regarding the court's authority to set timelines for Governors to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures. This hearing stems from the SC's earlier observations and judgments, notably in the Tamil Nadu case, where Governors were seen to be causing inordinate delays.
The Core of the Dispute: Two Contrasting Viewpoints
The courtroom debate highlights a classic tension in Indian constitutional law: Separation of Powers vs. Judicial Review.
1. The Supreme Court's Position (CJI B.R. Gavai)
Role as Custodian: The CJI asserted that the Supreme Court is the ultimate "custodian of the Constitution." Its duty is to protect the democratic framework and the will of the people from being thwarted by any authority, including the Governor.
Against Inaction: The court questioned whether it should remain a "mute spectator" if a Governor, by simply sitting on Bills for years (like the nearly four-year delay in Tamil Nadu), makes the elected state legislature "defunct."
Power of Judicial Review: The court cited the Basic Structure Doctrine, reminding the government that even a constitutional amendment (like the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which tried to limit judicial review) can be struck down if it violates the basic structure. Inaction by a Governor, which paralyzes governance, could be seen as such a violation.
2. The Union Government's Position (Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta)
Encroachment on Terrain: The government argues that by imposing timelines, the Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries and encroached into the domain of the executive and legislative functions.
Political Remedy, Not Judicial: Mr. Mehta contended that issues of gubernatorial inaction are primarily political questions. They should be resolved through political and parliamentary channels (e.g., discussions, pressure, etc.) and not through judicial orders.
Respect for Constitutional Authorities: The government expressed concern that judicial impositions of deadlines slight the high office of the Governor and the President.
Citation of NJAC Judgment: Interestingly, the government invoked the *Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs. Union of India (2015)* or the NJAC case, where the SC itself had emphasized that each organ of the state must respect the domain of the others.
Key Constitutional Concepts at Play
Role of the Governor (Article 200): This article outlines the Governor's options when a Bill is presented: give assent, withhold assent, reserve it for the President's consideration, or return it for reconsideration. However, it is silent on the timeframe for these actions. This silence is the root of the current conflict.
Judicial Review (Article 137): This is the power of the Supreme Court to examine and invalidate legislative and executive actions if they violate the Constitution. It is a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Separation of Powers: This is a doctrine fundamental to the Indian Constitution, mandating that the three organs—Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary—should not encroach upon each other's functions.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Propounded in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), it states that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that alters its "basic structure," which includes democracy, federalism, and judicial review.
Analysis: Why is this a Grey Area?
The Constitution expects Governors to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Indefinite sitting on Bills is seen as a violation of this spirit and a subversion of the elected government's mandate.
While the judiciary must not legislate or execute laws, it has a constitutional duty to ensure that other organs function within the constitutional framework. Inaction is also a form of action that can be reviewed.
The government's "political remedy" argument has merit but is often impractical. A ruling party at the Centre and an opposition party in a state can lead to a scenario where the political channel is blocked, making judicial intervention the only recourse.
Previous Year Questions (PYQs) for Practice
Prelims:
(2020) Consider the following statements:
The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks fit.
The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions.
There is no minimum number of days that the Parliament is required to meet in a year.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(Relevance: Understanding the discretion of constitutional authorities)
Mains (GS-II, 2022):
“The Governor’s role as an intermediary between the Union and the State has often become a source of contention rather than cooperation.” Critically examine.
Mains (GS-II, 2021):
Judicial Review is a process to restrain the executive or the legislature from exercising power that may not be sanctioned by the Constitution. Explain with recent examples.
Mains (GS-II, 2018):
Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.
Way Forward
The Supreme Court's decision in this reference will be a landmark one. It will need to perform a delicate balancing act:
Upholding Democracy: Ensuring that the democratic process is not held hostage by unelected officials.
Defining Limits: Creating a clear, principled standard for gubernatorial action without micromanaging the office. This could be in the form of "reasonable time" frameworks.
Preserving Federalism: Reinforcing the federal balance by protecting states from central overreach through the office of the Governor.
This case is a quintessential example of the Indian Constitution being a living document, where its silences are interpreted by the judiciary to meet the challenges of modern governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment