 |
|
The recent exchange between CPI state secretary Binoy Viswam and Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar highlights a significant debate concerning the powers and limitations of constitutional bodies in India. Viswam's criticism of Arlekar stems from the governor's public questioning of the Supreme Court's authority to set a time frame for the passage of bills. This incident underscores the delicate balance of power between the executive (represented by the Governor), the legislature (state assembly), and the judiciary (Supreme Court), as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of Articles 153 to 167 of Part 6 of the Constitution, which outline the powers and functions of the Governor. Viswam emphasizes that experienced leaders like Arlekar should be well-versed in these provisions, understanding the boundaries within which a Governor must operate. Arlekar's remarks, made in an interview, challenge the Supreme Court's verdict, suggesting that the court's intervention in setting a time limit for bill assent constitutes a de facto constitutional amendment. He argues that such an amendment, traditionally the prerogative of Parliament, cannot be unilaterally imposed by the judiciary, specifically by a bench of two judges. This raises fundamental questions about judicial overreach and the separation of powers. The Governor's position is that if the Supreme Court can effectively amend the Constitution through its judgments, the role of the legislature and Parliament becomes redundant. He further highlights the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in Parliament for passing constitutional amendments, contrasting it with the Supreme Court's decision-making process in this particular case. Viswam, on the other hand, accuses Arlekar of emulating the approach of former Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, implying a perceived overreach of authority. He stresses that the Governor should prioritize strengthening healthy Centre-state relations, rather than viewing the position as one of superior authority over the state legislature and the Supreme Court. This highlights the potential for friction between the Governor, who is appointed by the central government, and the state government, especially when they are governed by different political parties. The Governor's role is constitutionally defined as an impartial head of the state, acting on the advice of the council of ministers. However, the Governor also has discretionary powers, which can lead to disagreements and controversies, particularly in situations involving the passage of bills and the formation of governments. The current controversy raises important questions about the interpretation of the Constitution and the role of each branch of government. The Supreme Court's intervention, intended to address delays in bill assent, is seen by some as an encroachment on the powers of the executive and the legislature. Others argue that it is a necessary measure to ensure the smooth functioning of the government and to prevent the Governor from unduly delaying legislation passed by the state assembly. The debate also touches upon the broader issue of judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Proponents of judicial activism argue that the courts have a duty to interpret the Constitution in a way that promotes social justice and protects the rights of citizens, even if it means going beyond the literal text of the Constitution. Opponents of judicial activism argue that the courts should defer to the elected representatives of the people and should not interfere in policy matters unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. In this particular case, the Supreme Court's decision to set a time frame for bill assent can be seen as an example of judicial activism, as it goes beyond the explicit provisions of the Constitution. However, the court may have justified its intervention on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent the Governor from abusing his discretionary powers and obstructing the legislative process. The controversy surrounding the Governor's remarks and Viswam's criticism underscores the complexities of the Indian constitutional framework and the importance of maintaining a delicate balance of power between the different branches of government. It also highlights the need for clear guidelines and conventions to govern the relationship between the Governor and the state government, in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and ensure the smooth functioning of the democratic process.
Further delving into the intricacies of this constitutional standoff, it's crucial to understand the specific context of Kerala's political landscape. Kerala has often been at the forefront of challenging conventional norms and advocating for progressive policies. The state's history of strong social movements and left-leaning governments has shaped its approach to governance and its relationship with the central government. This context is essential in understanding why CPI, a prominent left party in Kerala, is particularly sensitive to any perceived encroachment on the state's autonomy. The Governor's role, as a representative of the central government, is inherently fraught with potential for conflict in states with differing political ideologies. The Governor is tasked with upholding the Constitution and ensuring that the state government functions in accordance with its provisions. However, the Governor's discretionary powers, such as withholding assent to bills or recommending the imposition of President's rule, can be viewed as instruments of political interference by the central government. The Supreme Court's intervention in this case can be interpreted as an attempt to mediate this inherent tension and ensure that the Governor's powers are exercised responsibly and in a manner consistent with the principles of democratic governance. The debate over the time frame for bill assent is not merely a technical legal issue; it has significant implications for the legislative process and the ability of the state government to implement its policies. If the Governor is allowed to indefinitely delay the assent to bills, it can effectively paralyze the state government and undermine the will of the people. The Supreme Court's attempt to set a time limit is aimed at preventing such a scenario and ensuring that the legislative process functions smoothly and efficiently. However, the Governor's argument that this amounts to a constitutional amendment raises a valid concern about the limits of judicial power. The Constitution clearly defines the process for amending its provisions, and it is generally accepted that the judiciary should not usurp the role of the legislature in this regard. The question, then, is whether the Supreme Court's intervention in this case constitutes a legitimate exercise of its power to interpret the Constitution or an unwarranted encroachment on the powers of the legislature. This debate highlights the inherent ambiguity in the Indian Constitution and the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of power between the different branches of government. The Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted in light of changing social and political realities. However, the interpretation of the Constitution is not a value-neutral exercise; it is inevitably influenced by the political ideologies and personal beliefs of the judges. This is why it is so important to have a judiciary that is both independent and accountable. The judges must be free from political interference, but they must also be aware of the potential impact of their decisions on society and be willing to justify their interpretations of the Constitution. The controversy surrounding the Governor's remarks and Viswam's criticism is a reminder of the importance of robust public debate and the need for all stakeholders to engage in a constructive dialogue about the future of Indian democracy. The Constitution is a shared framework that belongs to all citizens, and it is the responsibility of all to ensure that it is interpreted and applied in a manner that promotes justice, equality, and the rule of law.
Moreover, the context extends beyond Kerala, resonating with similar disputes in other states across India. The role of the Governor has frequently been a contentious issue in Indian politics, particularly in states governed by parties opposed to the ruling party at the Centre. Instances of Governors delaying assent to bills, questioning state government decisions, or even recommending the imposition of President's rule have sparked widespread criticism and accusations of political bias. This constant friction underscores a systemic problem: the lack of clearly defined guidelines and conventions governing the Governor's conduct. While the Constitution outlines the Governor's powers, it leaves considerable room for interpretation, leading to arbitrary actions and political maneuvering. The Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission, both appointed to review Centre-state relations, have recommended reforms to address this issue, advocating for greater transparency and accountability in the Governor's actions. However, many of these recommendations have yet to be implemented, leaving the door open for continued controversies. The Supreme Court's involvement in the Kerala case highlights the judiciary's growing willingness to intervene in matters concerning Centre-state relations, particularly when constitutional principles are at stake. This judicial activism, while welcomed by some as a necessary check on executive power, has also drawn criticism for potentially overstepping the boundaries of judicial review. The debate revolves around the delicate balance between upholding the Constitution and respecting the autonomy of the elected government. The key question is whether the courts should confine themselves to interpreting the Constitution in its literal sense or whether they should also consider the broader social and political context in which the Constitution operates. The Governor's concerns about the Supreme Court effectively amending the Constitution are not without merit. The power to amend the Constitution is vested solely in the Parliament, reflecting the principle of popular sovereignty. Allowing the judiciary to alter the Constitution through its interpretations could undermine the legitimacy of the amendment process and erode public trust in the democratic system. However, proponents of judicial activism argue that the Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted in light of evolving social norms and values. They contend that the judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that the Constitution remains relevant and responsive to the needs of the people, even if it means going beyond the literal text. In the Kerala case, the Supreme Court's decision to set a time frame for bill assent can be seen as an attempt to address a practical problem – the potential for Governors to obstruct the legislative process – while also upholding the constitutional principle of democratic governance. The Court's intention may have been to strike a balance between protecting the autonomy of the state government and ensuring that the legislative process functions efficiently. Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the Governor's remarks and Viswam's criticism underscores the ongoing need for a comprehensive review of Centre-state relations in India. The Constitution provides a framework for a cooperative federal system, but the reality is often one of conflict and tension. Strengthening the institutional mechanisms for resolving disputes between the Centre and the states, clarifying the role of the Governor, and promoting greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making are essential steps towards building a more harmonious and effective federal system.
Source: Viswam flays guv for questioning Supreme Court’s authority