Editorial 1 : A Bid For Unfettered Supremacy
Context: Tamil Nadu governor case: Judicial overreach, not constitutional interpretation.
Introduction: A two-judge bench invoked Article 142 (complete justice) to set time limits for gubernatorial assent to Bills, compel the President to seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143 (advisory jurisdiction) and threaten mandamus (judicial order) against the President if advice is not followed.
Key Arguments Against the Judgment
- Judicial Overreach
- The Court allegedly rewrote constitutional provisions (e.g. imposing time limits on Article 200 without legislative approval).
- Separation of Powers Violated: The judiciary encroached on executive (Governor/President) and legislative (Parliament’s amendment power) domains.
- Undermining Constitutional Framework
- Federal Balance: The ruling disrupts the balance between states and the Union by making the Supreme Court the real governor.
- Article 74 Ignored: The President must act on Cabinet advice, but the Court bypassed this by directing presidential action.
- Procedural Irregularities
- Bench Size: The case involved substantial questions of law but was decided by a two-judge bench, violating Article 145(3) which requires a 5-judge bench.
- Lack of Notice: States affected by the judgment were not consulted, violating principles of natural justice.
Constitutional Provisions in Conflict
- Article 142: Used to override Article 200 (Governor’s assent process).
- Article 200: The court-imposed time limits bypassed legislative amendment under Article 368.
- Article 74: The court sidestepped Cabinet’s role in advising the President.
- Article 145(3): The case was decided by a two-judge bench that required a 5-judge bench for constitutional matters.
Implications of the Judgment
- Expansion of Judicial Power
- The judiciary could become the final authority on state legislative matters.
- Risks of judicial supremacy overriding elected branches.
- Precedent for Future Conflicts
- The judgement opens the door for courts to mandate actions for the President/Governors.
- Encourages states to litigate delays in Governor’s assent.
- Threat to Constitutional Stability
- It weakens the separation of powers and federalism.
- The judgement risks legislative retaliation (e.g. Parliament regulating judicial procedures under Article 145(1)).
Way Forward: Recommendations
- Judicial Review by Larger Bench
- Restore Judicial Restraint: Courts should avoid shapeshifting the Constitution based on subjective morality.
- Legislative Measure: Parliament could legislate timelines for judicial decisions or create special appellate courts.
Conclusion: The judgment contradicts the Constitution’s founding principles of limited powers and democratic accountability.