Supreme Court's Judgment on Federalism and Governor's Powers
The Supreme Court of India's 414-page judgment has redefined the dynamics of federalism, a crucial part of the Constitution's basic structure. The case questioned the discretionary powers permitted to state Governors and introduced three significant precedents:
- The power to limit the time the President or Governor can take to assent a bill.
- The decision that neither the President nor the Governor can withhold assent from non-money bills.
- Reassessed bills by the state assembly can be deemed as passed by the Governor.
Content of the Bills
The ten contentious bills involved a power struggle between Tamil Nadu's state government and its Governor. The bills aimed to transfer powers over state universities from the Governor to the state, including the appointment of vice-chancellors, a move to reduce political influence over educational institutions.
Judicial Interpretation and Legal Repercussions
The SC's judgment had significant ramifications on state law-making. Although Article 145(3) requires a five-judge Bench for constitutional questions, a two-judge Bench used extraordinary powers under Article 142 for their decision. Their interpretation of Article 200 questioned the traditional roles of legislative and executive bodies.
- The Supreme Court should not legislate or interpret in its extraordinary jurisdiction, risking separation of powers.
- Previous rulings against withholding assent equating to rejecting bills were challenged.
- The Constitution provides for the state assembly, Governor, and President in bill passing, not for the Supreme Court's intervention.
Concerns and Recommendations
The judgment introduces arbitrary elements, like a fixed period for Governor's actions, contrary to recommendations by commissions such as the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions. These commissions did not recommend such short time frames, highlighting the potential lack of judicial foresight.
- The Court's mandate requiring the Governor to act on Ministerial advice contradicts Article 163, where the Governor can act independently.
- The Court's overreach into the executive domain raises separation of powers concerns, especially extending mandates to the President's office.
The Way Forward
In light of these issues, it is suggested that the Governor of Tamil Nadu file a curative petition to the Supreme Court to restore constitutional balance and the dignity of the President's office.
