A PROCLAMATION OF DEMOCRACY IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Why in the News?

  • The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu.
  • The ruling is considered historic as it significantly clarifies the roles and responsibilities of constitutional authorities in the legislative process.
  • The judgment effectively removes the perceived immunity or unchecked discretion enjoyed by the Governor and the President in giving assent to bills.
  • As a result of this verdict, a new development has emerged — certain laws are now being deemed passed without the formal assent of the Governor or the President.
  • This marks an unprecedented shift in the legislative history of the Indian Republic.

A PROCLAMATION OF DEMOCRACY IN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Judgment

  • The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver “complete justice” in the case.
  • It set a time limit for the Governor and President to respond to Bills passed by State legislatures.
  • The Court interpreted Articles 200 and 201, which outline the powers and responsibilities of Governors and the President regarding state legislation.
  • It clearly stated that Governors cannot obstruct laws passed by the legislature, which represent the will of the people.
  • The 414-page judgment has reportedly embarrassed the Central Government.
  • The Governor of Kerala publicly criticized the verdict, alleging that the Court had overstepped its jurisdiction.
  • He argued that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by bringing the President of India under judicial review, a move he believes infringes on the domain of Parliament.

The Issue of Interpretation – Key Points

  • The Constitution is dynamic, not static, and its interpretation requires a contextual and organic approach rather than a mechanical reading of the text.
  • India’s centralised Constitution often necessitates a federalist interpretation to uphold the interests of the States, which ultimately represent the will of the people.
  • Many gaps and ambiguities in the constitutional text demand imaginative and purposive construction to fulfill their intended goals.
  • Constitutional scholar Robert Post has criticized the plain meaning theory, stating it is not truly a theory of interpretation, as it bypasses deeper interpretative processes.
  • Unlike statutory interpretation, constitutional interpretation is expected to be panoramic, futuristic, and extensive.
  • The evolution from K. Gopalan (1950) to K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) illustrates how constitutional interpretation has transformed — from a narrow reading of Article 21 to an expansive recognition of privacy rights.
  • The recent judgment by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan is seen as a reflection of constitutional modernity and realism.

Articles 200 and 201 – Explained

  • Article 200 outlines the duties (not powers) of the Governor with respect to Bills passed by the State legislature:
    • The Governor can:
      • Give assent
      • Withhold assent
      • Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President
      • Return the Bill (if not a money Bill) for reconsideration
    • If the Bill is re-passed by the legislature, the Governor is constitutionally bound to grant assent.
  • Article 201 governs the President’s response to a Bill reserved for consideration:
    • The President can:
      • Give assent
      • Withhold assent
      • Direct the Governor to return the Bill (if not a money Bill) with a message for reconsideration
    • If the State legislature re-passes the Bill, the President must again reconsider the legislation.
  • These Articles aim to balance constitutional checks while respecting legislative will and maintaining federal harmony.

 Requirement of a Reasoned Order

  • The constitutional scheme is incomplete, as it lacks a clear time frame for the Governor or President to act on Bills passed by State legislatures.
  • In the Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court examined the intent and content of the relevant provisions and identified deficits, including:
    • No prescribed timeline for action.
    • Excessive reliance on trust in constitutional functionaries, which has often been betrayed, especially in recent times.
  • A mere textual interpretation was deemed insufficient to resolve the impasse. Therefore, the Court:
    • Fixed time limits for the Governor and President to respond to Bills.
    • Declared that inaction or arbitrary action by these authorities is subject to judicial scrutiny.
  • The Court invoked Article 142 to provide a constitutional synthesis by introducing the concept of deemed assent from the President in the interest of complete justice.
  • The judgment cited the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988), which warned that disagreement with Union policy is not a valid ground for the President to withhold assent.
  • The verdict emphasized the need for reasoned orders when constitutional authorities decline assent, rejecting the notion of “simpliciter withholding” of Bills.
  • As a result, the perceived immunity of the Governor and the President in the legislative process has been completely removed.
  • The Court’s actions are not an amendment of the Constitution, but a supplementation based on constitutional purpose and precedent — particularly relying on:
    • Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974) – a foundational ruling on gubernatorial powers.
    • K. Pavitra vs Union of India (2019) – which rejected the idea of unfettered discretion in constitutional processes.
  • The judgment signals a resurgence of judicial assertiveness, particularly in holding the political executive
  • Overall, it is seen as a proclamation of the people’s right to legislative governance and a step forward for democratic constitutionalism.

Suggestions

Promote Brevity and Timeliness in Judgments

  • In critical constitutional matters, the Supreme Court should aim to deliver concise judgments within a shorter time frame.
  • The current practice of voluminous verdicts after long delays may dilute the immediacy and impact of constitutional justice.
  • Example: The UK Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) vs The Prime Minister (2019) was only 24 pages, demonstrating clarity, speed, and effectiveness.
  • Brevity and promptness can be powerful tools during national constitutional crises.

Improve Case Management through Clubbing Similar Cases

  • The Court should adopt a systematic approach to club together cases of similar nature, ensuring they are heard by the same Bench.
  • In the aftermath of the Tamil Nadu judgment, Kerala had to make a special request to have its similar case heard by the same Bench — a step that could have been preempted through better internal coordination.
  • Ensuring propriety, certainty, predictability, and clarity is crucial in constitutional adjudication.
  • A structured internal management mechanism will enhance judicial efficiency and public confidence.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-proclamation-of-democracy-in-legislative-process/article69453724.ece

Mains Question (250 words):

Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu in redefining the role of constitutional authorities in the legislative process.