Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference
The Supreme Court's judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has sparked a mixed response, with both criticism and praise. The decision is scrutinized for its implications on constitutional timelines for high authorities. The verdict leans towards not imposing timelines, reflecting judicial deference to the constitutional text but possibly neglecting the need for evolving interpretation.
Key Issues Highlighted
- Constitutional Silence on Timelines:
- The Indian Constitution lacks explicit timelines for the functions of authorities such as the President, Governors, and Speakers.
- This absence leads to anomalies, such as indefinite delays in defection proceedings under the Tenth Schedule, potentially outlasting the tenure of an Assembly or Parliament.
- Role of Governors:
- Governors have been criticized for sitting on duly passed legislative business, effectively blocking laws, which was not the drafters' intent.
- The court's judgment supports this by not imposing timelines in Article 200, potentially undermining legislative processes.
- Constitutional Morality:
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized constitutional morality, urging its integration into the Republic's foundation and foresaw how administration forms could subvert constitutional intents.
- This concept has been pivotal in progressive judgments on issues like Sabarimala Temple entry and LGBTQIA+ rights.
Concluding Thoughts
The Court's reluctance to establish timelines for constitutional functionaries may lead to outcomes that contradict the Constitution's foundational ideals. This highlights the ongoing need for constitutional morality to be more deeply ingrained in governance, reflecting Dr. Ambedkar's vision for the Republic's future.
