Context: The recent judgement of the Supreme Court regarding the powers of governor with respect to bills has ignited a debate around the powers and limitations around judicial decision making. The landmark judgment, which set a deadline for the Executive to clear Bills, also curtailed the President's absolute veto powers. In this context, let us see where the judgement falls short.
Relevance of the Topic:Mains: Executive Inaction vs Judicial Activism.
Criticism of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Tamil Nadu Governor case
- Judicial Overreach and Usurpation of Legislative Functions: The Supreme Court, through a two-judge bench, has been criticised for crossing the line from interpretation into legislation. By imposing time limits on the Governor’s assent to Bills, the Court has effectively rewritten Article 200, a task that lies within the domain of Parliament under Article 368. This is seen as a breathtaking expansion of judicial power that goes beyond constitutional limits and undermines the federal structure.
- Undermining Doctrine of Separation of Powers: By claiming the power to compel the President to seek judicial advice under Article 143, the Court has intruded into executive discretion thus blurring the roles of Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. This also challenges the scheme of Articles 74, 200, and 201, where the President must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, not the judiciary.
- Violation of Constitutional Procedures: The matter involved a substantial constitutional question, which by Article 145(3), should have been heard by a Constitution Bench (minimum five judges), not a two-judge bench. The judgment sets a precedent that allows significant constitutional reinterpretations without due procedural thoroughness.
- Absence of Federal Consultation: The Court passed a judgment that affects all states in India, yet no notice was issued to any state government, nor were they given a chance to present their views. This is seen as a breach of the federal spirit.
- Use of Article 142 to bypass Constitutional Amendments: Article 142, intended to do “complete justice,” was used to effectively amend Article 200 by setting time limits for gubernatorial assent — a power the judiciary does not constitutionally possess. Critics argue that constitutional amendments require a special legislative procedure, not a judicial decree.
- Erosion of Democratic Accountability: Judges are not directly accountable to the public. Their exercise of quasi-legislative powers, without democratic legitimacy, has raised questions about institutional checks and balances. The judgment is viewed as furthering judicial supremacy, which Dr. Ambedkar had warned against.
- Legislative Backlash: The judgment may invite legislative intervention to regulate judicial procedures, citing Article 145(1), which empowers Parliament to frame laws on Supreme Court procedure.
Also Read: SC sets time limits for Governors to act on Bills
Also Read: SC sets timeline for President on Referred Bills
Grounds for Review
The Central Government is likely to file a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the apex court's ruling in the Tamil Nadu case. The judgment is ripe for review on at least three strong constitutional grounds:
- Lack of hearing for affected states, despite national applicability.
- Inadequate bench strength for deciding a substantial constitutional issue.
- Judicial insertion of time limits in Article 200, which constitutionally requires amendment via Article 368.
Critics argue the judgement represents a shift from a living Constitution to a shape-shifting one, where the judiciary increasingly centralises authority in its hands — raising concerns about long-term institutional balance and constitutional integrity.
