 |
|
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has not only limited the powers of governors concerning the withholding of assent to Bills passed by state legislative assemblies but has also actively cleared ten Bills that were effectively stalled by the Governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi. Notably, seven of these Bills had even been rejected by the President of India, adding another layer of complexity to the situation. This intervention by the apex court raises critical questions about the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, as well as the extent to which the judiciary can, and should, step in to resolve political deadlocks. The court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure 'complete justice' in the matter. Article 142 grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. While initially used sparingly, the application of Article 142 has become more frequent in recent years, often attracting both praise and criticism. Some view it as a vital tool for the court to address injustices and ensure the effective functioning of the state, while others see it as an instance of 'judicial overreach,' where the judiciary encroaches upon the powers reserved for the other branches of government.
The genesis of this legal battle lies in the Tamil Nadu government's dissatisfaction with Governor Ravi's handling of several Bills passed by the state legislature. In October 2023, the state government filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, alleging 'inaction, omission, delay, and failure' on the part of the Governor. Out of the twelve Bills mentioned in the petition, assent had been withheld for ten Bills, and two had been reserved for the President's consideration. A significant number of these Bills pertained to the appointment of Vice-Chancellors (VCs) in state universities. The Tamil Nadu government sought to transfer the power of appointing VCs from the Governor, who traditionally serves as the ex-officio Chancellor of these institutions, to the state government itself. These Bills, therefore, represented a direct challenge to the Governor's control over public-state universities, a power considered to be one of the substantial prerogatives of the gubernatorial office. The Supreme Court, during its hearing of the case, expressed 'serious concern' regarding the instances of governor's inaction across multiple states, highlighting the broader implications of the issue beyond the specific context of Tamil Nadu. The central issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Article 200 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the powers of the Governor concerning Bills passed by the state legislature. The Article empowers the Governor to grant assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or return the Bill to the legislature for reconsideration. If the legislature re-passes the Bill, with or without amendments, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to grant assent. However, the ambiguity lies in the timeframe within which the Governor must act, leading to situations where Bills remain pending for extended periods, effectively stalling the legislative process.
During the pendency of the case before the Supreme Court, Governor Ravi returned all ten Bills to the state legislative assembly in November 2023, further fueling the discord with the DMK-led state government. In a special session convened on November 18, 2023, all ten Bills for which assent had been withheld were re-passed by the legislative assembly and promptly sent back to the Governor's Secretariat on the same day. This re-passing of the Bills constitutionally mandated the Governor to grant his assent, yet this did not occur. The Chennai University (Amendment) Bill 2022 and the Tamil Nadu Siddha Medical University Bill 2022 were forwarded by Governor Ravi to the President for consideration. In contrast, the Governor withheld his consent for the remaining Bills. A period of thirteen months, spanning from January 2020 to August 2023, saw these Bills remain pending with the Governor, causing significant disruption to the state's legislative agenda and prompting the state government to seek judicial intervention. The Supreme Court's decision to clear the stalled Bills and render the President's action void was based on its interpretation of Article 142 and its determination to ensure 'complete justice.' The President had assented to one of the Bills, not considered two, and rejected seven, according to reports. This action by the Supreme Court is considered a rare instance of judicial intervention in the legislative domain, as the passing of Bills is primarily the responsibility of the legislature and the executive branches of government. The Constitution mandates the separation of powers among these three organs, aiming to establish a system of checks and balances. The division bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, reaffirmed that once a Bill is returned to the Governor and subsequently re-passed without changes, the Governor is duty-bound to grant assent to it. The court criticized the indefinite practice of 'pocket veto' as illegal and directed the Governor to act with expedition while exercising powers under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court's intervention has sparked a wide-ranging debate about the appropriate role of the judiciary in resolving political disputes and ensuring the effective functioning of the government. While some applaud the court's action as a necessary step to prevent executive overreach and protect the legislative process, others criticize it as an instance of 'judicial activism' that undermines the separation of powers. The use of Article 142, in particular, has drawn scrutiny, with some legal experts arguing that it should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is a clear failure of other constitutional mechanisms. Critics argue that the court's decision to effectively pass the Bills itself, after they had been rejected or not considered by the President, represents an encroachment on the powers of the executive branch. They contend that the court's role should be limited to interpreting the law and ensuring that the other branches of government act within their constitutional boundaries, rather than directly intervening in the legislative process. Furthermore, some commentators have raised concerns about the potential for the Supreme Court's action to set a precedent that could lead to further judicial interventions in the future, potentially blurring the lines between the judiciary and the other branches of government. The horizontal division of powers among the organs of the government is a fundamental principle of constitutionalism, aimed at establishing a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. The Supreme Court's intervention, while intended to address a specific situation of executive inaction, has raised questions about whether it has inadvertently disrupted this balance.
The invocation of Article 142, previously a relatively infrequent occurrence, has become more common in recent years. Critics have cited instances such as the overturning of the Chandigarh mayoral election results as examples of 'judicial overreach.' One commentator, Kumar Govindan, based in Salem, stated that 'Using Article 142 in this instance is clear over each by the Judiciary into the Executive domain... The Law has taken (Executive) Law into its own hands.' Similarly, political analyst SS Iyengar argued that 'Judicial activism must stop. If the SC can approve bills which are legislative and administrative in nature, why do we need Governors or the President? Say if a state passes a law that’s against the Constitution, should the governor approve it? Looks like the need of the hour is a constitutional amendment.' Iyengar further suggested that 'To uphold its constitutional responsibilities, the central government must appeal to the Constitution bench and argue the case. The SC should not take legislative or executive powers in its hands using Article 142.' These critiques highlight the concerns about the potential for the judiciary to overstep its boundaries and encroach upon the powers of the other branches of government. However, other experts have defended the Supreme Court's actions, arguing that the court was justified in intervening given the exceptional circumstances of the case. A constitutional expert stated that 'When one constitutional functionary failed, and not only failed, but acted illegally, and the Bills were pending for several years, then the court can certainly interfere.' This perspective emphasizes the court's role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution and its responsibility to ensure that the rule of law is upheld, even when other constitutional functionaries fail to perform their duties.
The Supreme Court's move to clear the Bills on April 8, 2025, is being widely debated as another instance of 'judicial activism' and the use of Article 142 to step into the Executive's domain. While the ruling has defined the timeframe for governors to clear Bills, it has also sparked a heated debate about the appropriate balance of power between the different branches of government and the extent to which the judiciary should intervene in political disputes. The debate surrounding the Supreme Court's intervention in the Tamil Nadu Bills case underscores the complex and often contentious relationship between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branches of government in India. The Constitution mandates a separation of powers, but the boundaries between these branches are not always clear-cut, and there is often room for interpretation and disagreement. The Supreme Court, as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, plays a crucial role in defining these boundaries and ensuring that each branch of government acts within its constitutional limits. However, the court's decisions in this regard are often controversial, as they can have significant implications for the balance of power and the functioning of the government. The Tamil Nadu Bills case is a prime example of this dynamic, highlighting the ongoing debate about the appropriate role of the judiciary in Indian democracy.
Source: Using extraordinary powers, SC cleared even President-rejected Tamil Nadu Bills