SC Questions Governors’ Delay on State Bills

SC Questions Governors’ Indefinite Delay on State Bills

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential Reference under Article 143 on whether it can prescribe timelines for governors and the president to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The case follows growing concerns over governors withholding bills indefinitely, raising questions about fundamental rights, environmental justice, and the principles of Indian legal system, including the role of the National Green Tribunal in environmental matters.

Supreme Court’s Concerns:

• A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai observed that governors sitting indefinitely on bills makes legislatures “defunct” and undermines the will of the people, potentially infringing on Article 21 rights and the right to life, which could impact conservation efforts for endangered species like the Great Indian Bustard.
• The Court asked: “If a bill remains pending for 4 years, what happens to democracy and majority rule?”
• Judges emphasised that not acting on a bill cannot mean a “full stop”; some mechanism must exist to ensure timely court decisions and maintain ecological balance, including proper implementation of environmental impact assessments.
• The bench questioned: Can judicial review be excluded if constitutional authorities do not act? This raises concerns about environmental governance and the precautionary principle, which are crucial for protecting biodiversity and habitats of species like the Great Indian Bustard.
• Court stressed its role as custodian of the Constitution, noting that legislative supremacy cannot be nullified by gubernatorial inaction, which could lead to a high court decision or intervention by the National Green Tribunal if necessary, potentially impacting environmental impact assessment processes.

Centre’s Counterarguments:

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that timelines cannot be judicially imposed where the Constitution is silent, citing the need for flexibility in environmental decision-making, including the conduct of thorough environmental impact assessments (EIAs).
• He cited that even in criminal trials, courts cannot prescribe fixed deadlines, drawing parallels to the complex nature of environmental impact assessments.
• Mehta suggested solutions lie in political processes, not judicial intervention – CMs can engage with governors, PM, or President to address issues of environmental degradation, including threats to species like the Great Indian Bustard.
• Claimed remedies ultimately rest with Parliament through constitutional amendments, not court-imposed timelines, emphasizing the importance of legislative action in biodiversity conservation and strengthening institutions like the National Green Tribunal.
• Warned against judicial adventurism, echoing the Chief Justice’s remark that “judicial activism should not become judicial terrorism.” This caution extends to climate litigation and environmental jurisprudence, including cases handled by the NGT.
• Rejected the April SC ruling invoking Article 142 to grant “deemed assent” to pending Tamil Nadu bills, calling it unconstitutional and potentially harmful to environmental law principles and the polluter pays principle, which are often applied in National Green Tribunal rulings.