Introduction
The debate as to whether constitutional authority can be subjected to judicial timeframes has gained prominence as the Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution Bench considers a Presidential Reference relating to the President’s and Governors’ deadlines for making decisions on bills. The conflict between judicial supervision and constitutional prerogatives is addressed in this case, which delves into whether courts have the authority or power to impose a timeline on the highest constitutional offices when there is a delay in decisions of the state legislation. This case aims to address 14 specific questions regarding Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution, which deal with the Governor’s and the President’s power regarding assent to bills passed by the state legislatures.
Background
This presidential reference arose from growing concerns over these lengthy delays by the Governors in giving assent to Bills passed by the state legislatures, especially in states where a party different from the ruling party at the Centre is ruling. Several states, including the Government of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Punjab, have faced situations where their Bills have remained pending for an extended period with the Governors without any decisions. This issue gained attention when various High Courts of the Nation began entertaining petitions from states seeking mandamus against Governors for their inaction on pending bills.
A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is hearing the matter. This reference was originally due for a hearing and commenced the hearing procedure on August 19, with the Court asking all parties to submit their written submissions by August 12. The fundamental question revolves around whether the powers exercised by Governors under Article 200 and by the President under Article 201 are subject to judicial review and whether constitutional timelines can be imposed on these high constitutional offices.
Key Points
Several constitutional principles were being examined through this Presidential Reference:
- Legitimacy of the Constitutional Functions: The main question that was discussed in this case was whether the actions or inactions of the President and the Governor with respect to the bill’s assent are subject to review by the judiciary. The Union of India informed the Supreme Court that the role of the President and the Governor in giving assent to a bill is a “high prerogative” function of the Constitution, and the courts, therefore, cannot set a harsh timeline or timeframe for such functions.
- Maintainability under Article 32: One of the critical aspects that was being discussed in this case was whether states can file a direct appeal under Article 32 under the Constitution against the President or the Governor for any delay in decision-making. Arguments put forth suggested that states cannot file a petition under Article 32 against the actions of the President or the Governor, as such pleas are not maintainable.
- Timeline imposed by the Courts: The Court regarding the President’s power to give assent under Article 201, held that, the President’s power of decision making is not beyond judicial scrutiny or review and that the decision must be made within 3 months, if there is any delay beyond this time period, the reason for such delay must be made in writing and should be communicated to the concerned states.
- Constitutional Norms vs. Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court has said that it is not undermining the Office of the Governor by providing and fixing a timeline for their actions under Article 200, but they must comply with the established parliamentary democracy customs.
The Supreme Court’s approach to this case shows how the Courts have the authority to intervene if constitutional functions are not performed within reasonable timelines.
Recent Developments
The hearings have drawn vigorous participation from several stakeholders. State of Kerala contended that eleven out of fourteen questions posed in the Presidential reference have been addressed by earlier Supreme Court decisions, while State of Tamil Nadu has contended that the phrasing of the reference seeks to pull back settled law on the Governor’s powers under Article 200 and the President’s powers under Article 201 of the Constitution.
The Centre has continued to assert that constitutional offices should not be placed under the command of judicial mandamus. The Solicitor General argued that the Court cannot command the President to ‘decide in three months and give reasons if not’, then tell the State ‘, If you do not get to the Court’.
The Constitution Bench is now looking into whether there is some differentiation in the context of the Governor’s function as an agent of the Centre and as a constitutional head bound by constitutional norms in other cases. The hearings have also considered whether the Governor’s discretionary powers are completely free of constitutional boundaries.
Conclusion
The Presidential Reference concerning deadlines for Governors marks a potential turning point in the balance between constitutional law and the tyranny of the executive branch and judicial intervention at the highest levels. The decision, which the Constitution Bench considers, will either pronounce that the highest constitutional offices in India are free from the interference of judicial timelines or that they are bound in a democracy and are accountable, even if judicial timelines are imposed on them. The case illustrates the continual trend of constitutional interpretation in a federal democracy, which is marked by the contentious relationship between the Centre and the states that requires judicial equilibrium.
There is a question of whether the Court will set up enforceable deadlines for constitutional decision-making, or whether the court will sustain the status quo of non-judicial mandamus, Constitutional immunities of the high offices. The outcome of both these possibilities will shape the architecture of federalism, the arrangement of supremacy and the separation of powers.
The ongoing proceedings underscore the balance that has to be struck between high constitutional offices and the governance lapse incurring indefinite delays, which is required to maintain democracy and federal balance. The conclusive adjudication will perhaps set the rules for lower courts on constitutional authorities and the applicability of judicial accountability.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
