India's No.1 PU & Degree With Integrated IAS & IPS(UPSC/PSC) Training College.
A verdict that abandons justice
A VERDICT THAT IS AN ABDICATION OF JUDICIAL FUNCTION
Why in the News?
- The Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has sparked equal criticism and appreciation.
- The verdict deals with whether timelines should be fixed for the duties of high constitutional authorities.
- Critics argue the Court showed excessive deference to the Constitution’s text without adapting it to contemporary needs, much like the rigidity seen in some environmental clearance processes.
- The hesitation to set or interpret timelines is seen as limiting the Court’s constitutional responsibility, reminiscent of debates surrounding ex post facto environmental clearances.
- This reluctance may affect constitutional morality and the effectiveness of judicial review, potentially impacting areas beyond governance, including environmental jurisprudence.
Lack of Timelines in the Constitution
- The Indian Constitution does not specify timelines for actions to be taken by major constitutional authorities such as:
○ The President of India
○ Governors of States
○ Speakers of legislative bodies
- Example: Speakers of Parliament and State Assemblies
○ Serve as quasi-judicial authorities when deciding cases of defection under the Tenth Schedule.
○ Despite the significance of this power, no time limit is prescribed for completing defection proceedings, similar to the lack of clear timelines in environmental impact assessment processes.
Constitutional Anomaly
- A major anomaly arises because the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies have fixed five-year terms, yet no timeline exists for deciding defection petitions.
- In theory, an MLA/MP could complete their full tenure without ever facing consequences for proven defection, akin to how some projects operate without proper environmental clearances.
- This loophole has been exploited in several recent State political crises, weakening the purpose of the anti-defection law and potentially undermining environmental democracy.
Issues with Governors’ Actions
- Governors have, in several cases, delayed or withheld legislative business, triggering constitutional disputes, reminiscent of delays in granting environmental clearances.
- The debate is not about the Governor’s power to return a Bill for reconsideration, but about whether they can indefinitely delay action on a Bill passed by the legislature, similar to concerns about retrospective environmental clearances.
- Indefinite inaction effectively nullifies democratic decisions, which was never the intention of the Constitution’s framers, much like how ex-post facto environmental approvals can undermine environmental protection.
- Only constitutional courts, not Governors, have the power to invalidate laws or executive actions when they are ultra vires, paralleling the role of courts in environmental jurisprudence.
Irony in the Verdict
- The Supreme Court’s decision in the Presidential Reference favours avoiding timelines for constitutional authorities, potentially setting a precedent that could affect various sectors, including environmental governance.
- The judgment reasons that since Article 200 does not mention any timeframe, the Constitution’s design discourages adding one, a logic that could be problematically applied to environmental regulations like the Forest Conservation Act.
- This interpretation effectively validates governors’ delays, allowing them to stall or block Bills passed by elected State Assemblies, potentially creating a situation analogous to delayed environmental impact assessments.
- Such an outcome goes beyond judicial restraint—it cedes judicial review space to Governors, enabling misuse of constitutional silence, which could have far-reaching implications for environmental democracy.
- Critics argue the Court failed to interpret constitutional silence in a way that would protect constitutional morality and democratic functioning, potentially affecting the application of principles like “polluter pays” and the precautionary principle in environmental cases.
Role of Constitutional Morality
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his November 4, 1948 speech, emphasised the need to embed constitutional morality into the Republic’s foundation, a principle that extends to environmental governance.
- This principle has gained importance in modern jurisprudence, influencing areas from constitutional law to environmental jurisprudence.
- Recent landmark rulings—such as those on women’s entry into Sabarimala and LGBTQIA+ rights—have relied heavily on constitutional morality to interpret the Constitution in line with social conscience and evolving values, an approach that could be applied to ensure a pollution-free environment.
A Pointer
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s call for constitutional morality was accompanied by a caution to future courts, applicable to all areas of governance, including environmental regulation.
- He highlighted that the form of administration is closely linked to the form of the Constitution, and warned that the Constitution could be subverted by altering administrative practices, a concern relevant to environmental clearance processes.
- Current issues—Speakers delaying defection rulings and Governors withholding Bills beyond Assembly tenure—are clear examples of such constitutional perversion, comparable to the misuse of ex-post or retrospective environmental clearances.
- Ambedkar recognised the difficulty in adding administrative details into the Constitution but trusted future generations and courts to uphold its core principles, a trust that extends to environmental protection under the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court’s reluctance to frame or mandate timelines for constitutional authorities risks undermining constitutional ideals, potentially affecting areas like coastal regulation zone management.
- This situation serves as a reminder that constitutional morality, as envisioned by Ambedkar, is yet to fully permeate governance and public life, including environmental governance.
Way Forward
- Mandate reasonable timelines for constitutional authorities—such as Governors and Speakers—either through judicial interpretation or parliamentary legislation to prevent misuse of constitutional silence, and consider similar approaches for environmental clearance processes.
- Strengthen judicial oversight to ensure that inaction by constitutional functionaries does not stall democratic processes or legislative intent, extending this principle to environmental jurisprudence.
- Codify procedural guidelines for actions under Articles 163, 200, and the Tenth Schedule to reduce ambiguity and prevent arbitrary delays, potentially applying similar strategies to streamline environmental impact assessment procedures.
- Reinforce constitutional morality in governance by ensuring actions of constitutional authorities uphold democratic principles and the spirit of the Constitution, including the right to a pollution-free environment.
- Promote institutional accountability, requiring constitutional functionaries to publicly justify delays or inaction, a principle that could be extended to environmental regulatory bodies.
- Encourage parliamentary reforms, including clearer norms for handling defection cases and timelines for quasi-judicial decisions by Speakers, while also considering reforms in environmental legislation like the EIA notification.
- Foster civic and political awareness so that constitutional morality, as envisioned by Dr. Ambedkar, becomes a guiding ethos in public institutions, encompassing environmental democracy and sustainable development principles.
Mains Question (250 words)
Critically examine how the Supreme Court’s reluctance to prescribe timelines for constitutional functionaries affects constitutional morality, democratic accountability, and the functioning of institutions such as Governors and Speakers. Draw parallels with environmental governance challenges, such as those seen in the Vanashakti judgment on ex-post facto clearances.
