 |
|
The Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar's expressed reservations about the Supreme Court's directive in the Tamil Nadu case, which set a timeline for Governors to act on Bills passed by state legislatures, has the potential to unleash a series of new legal challenges for the Kerala government, particularly before the apex court. The Governor's contention that the Supreme Court's order constitutes an 'overreach' could provide a foundation for arguments against Kerala's existing petition seeking a definitive guideline for the Governor's action on Bills passed by the State legislature. Furthermore, the Governor's stance could influence the challenge to President Droupadi Murmu's decision to withhold assent for four of seven Bills passed by the Kerala State legislature. State law officers are keenly aware that the Governor's views significantly increase the likelihood of a demand to refer Kerala’s petition and the challenge regarding the President's decision to a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The core of the issue revolves around the interpretation of the Governor's constitutional powers and the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in what some perceive as the Governor's discretionary authority. The Governor's statements suggest a fundamental disagreement with the Court's interpretation of the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. The Governor’s argument posits that the Supreme Court, in setting a time limit, has effectively amended the Constitution, a prerogative solely reserved for the Parliament. This challenges the very foundation of the Supreme Court's intervention. The question now is whether the Attorney General of India, representing both the Union of India and the Governor, will seize upon this opportunity to formally request the case's referral to a larger Bench when the Supreme Court commences its consideration of the case. This decision would have significant ramifications for the future of Governor-State relations and the balance of power within the Indian constitutional framework. The Governor believes that the Supreme Court fixing a time limit for the Governor to give assent to the Bills effectively amounts to a constitutional amendment, which is exclusively the prerogative of the Parliament. He also expressed the opinion that the Constitution does not imply anyone instructing the Governor to act within a specific time period. This line of reasoning directly confronts the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Governor's role and underscores the deep-seated differences in constitutional perspectives. The Governor questions how two judges at the Supreme Court can decide the fate of constitutional provisions. This argument highlights a concern about judicial overreach and the potential for the judiciary to encroach upon the powers of the executive and legislative branches. Raj Bhavan sources have confirmed that the Governor stands by the contentions he raised in the interview, reinforcing his firm stance on the matter and signaling a willingness to engage in a protracted legal battle if necessary. This unwavering position further complicates the legal landscape and sets the stage for a potentially contentious showdown in the Supreme Court. The Kerala government, perhaps preemptively, had initially sought to have its case heard by the same Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, the very bench that delivered the landmark order in the Tamil Nadu case. The government believed that its contentions were already substantially addressed by the Bench's previous order. However, the Chief Justice of India refused to concede to the State's plea, firmly stating that the case would be heard on May 13. This refusal suggests a deliberate decision to ensure a comprehensive review of the matter, potentially signaling that the Court recognizes the gravity of the constitutional questions at stake. The Attorney General of India had previously requested additional time to thoroughly review the judgment, further underscoring the complexity and significance of the issues involved. P. Rajeeve, the State Minister for Law, offered a more measured response, acknowledging the Governor's right to criticize the Supreme Court's judgment, but emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decision constitutes the law of the land. He also noted that the Supreme Court retains the authority to review the validity of even constitutional amendments made by the Parliament. This statement underscores the delicate balance between respecting the independence of the judiciary and acknowledging the authority of the legislature. It reflects a pragmatic approach that recognizes the importance of upholding the rule of law while also acknowledging the potential for judicial review.
The crux of the issue lies in the delicate balance of power between the Governor, the State legislature, and the judiciary. The Indian Constitution envisions a system of checks and balances, where each branch of government plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability and preventing any single entity from becoming too powerful. The Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, acts as a bridge between the state government and the central government. The Governor's duties include assenting to Bills passed by the state legislature, which is a critical step in the legislative process. However, the Governor also has the power to reserve Bills for the President's consideration, effectively delaying or even preventing their enactment. This power is intended to be used sparingly, primarily in cases where the Bill is deemed to be unconstitutional or conflicts with national interests. The Supreme Court's intervention in this matter stems from concerns that Governors have been unduly delaying or withholding assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, thereby hindering the functioning of democratically elected governments. The Court's order in the Tamil Nadu case sought to address this issue by setting a timeline for Governors to act on Bills, ensuring that the legislative process is not unduly obstructed. However, the Governor's argument that this constitutes a constitutional amendment raises a fundamental question about the scope of judicial power. The Constitution clearly vests the power to amend the Constitution with the Parliament, and any attempt by the judiciary to alter the constitutional framework without following the prescribed amendment procedure could be seen as an overreach. The debate also highlights the inherent tension between the principle of federalism and the need for a strong central government. The Indian Constitution is a federal document, which divides powers between the central government and the state governments. However, the central government retains significant control over the states, including through the appointment of Governors. This arrangement has often led to friction between the central government and state governments, particularly when different political parties are in power at the center and in the states. The Governor's role as a representative of the central government can sometimes conflict with the Governor's duty to act as the constitutional head of the state. This conflict can be particularly acute when the Governor is perceived to be acting on the instructions of the central government, rather than in the best interests of the state.
The potential for a larger bench of the Supreme Court to review the matter introduces a significant element of uncertainty. A larger bench typically consists of a greater number of judges, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced examination of the legal and constitutional issues at stake. The decision to refer a case to a larger bench is usually reserved for matters of significant public importance or when there is a conflict of opinion among different benches of the Court. In this case, the fact that the Governor's stance directly contradicts the Supreme Court's earlier order in the Tamil Nadu case likely contributes to the possibility of a referral. A larger bench would have the opportunity to re-examine the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Governor's powers and to provide a more definitive ruling on the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in matters involving the Governor's discretionary authority. The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the Governor and the State legislature, as well as for the broader balance of power within the Indian constitutional framework. If the Supreme Court upholds its earlier order, it would reinforce the principle that Governors must act expeditiously on Bills passed by state legislatures. This would strengthen the autonomy of state governments and ensure that democratically elected legislatures are not unduly hampered in their functioning. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court sides with the Governor's arguments, it could significantly curtail the Court's ability to intervene in matters involving the Governor's discretionary authority. This would potentially weaken the autonomy of state governments and could create opportunities for Governors to delay or obstruct legislation passed by state legislatures. The legal challenges stemming from the Governor’s stance have the potential to reshape the constitutional landscape of India, defining the boundaries of power and influence among the different branches of government. Regardless of the eventual outcome, the legal proceedings are sure to be closely watched by legal scholars, political analysts, and the general public, as they hold profound implications for the future of Indian democracy and federalism. The Attorney General's role in this situation is also noteworthy. As the chief legal advisor to the Government of India, the Attorney General has a duty to represent the interests of both the Union of India and the Governor. This dual responsibility could create a conflict of interest, particularly if the Governor's views are at odds with the policies of the central government. The Attorney General's decision on whether to seek a referral to a larger bench will be closely scrutinized, as it could be interpreted as a signal of the central government's stance on the issue. The final decision will rest with the Supreme Court, but the Attorney General's input could significantly influence the Court's deliberations.
Source: Governor’s stance on Tamil Nadu case may pose new legal challenges to Kerala