SC ON ARTICLE 355 : POLITY

 

SC ON ARTICLE 355 : POLITY

NEWS: Supreme Court questions claims of ‘judicial incursion’

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

The Supreme Court rejected a plea to compel the Union Government to invoke Article 355 over communal violence in West Bengal, reinforcing that emergency powers are executive decisions and cautioning against judicial overreach. This comes amid debates on judiciary-executive boundaries, highlighted by the Court's intervention in Tamil Nadu Governor's assent delays.

Context

  • A plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Union Government to invoke Article 355 of the Constitution in response to communal violence incidents in West Bengal.
  • The petitioner argued that the Union had a constitutional duty to act to protect citizens and ensure constitutional governance in the State.
  • The Supreme Court, however, rejected the plea, emphasizing that it could not compel the Union to invoke Article 355, cautioning against judicial overreach into executive functions.
  • This plea was filed at a time when broader questions regarding the judiciary’s role vis-à-vis the executive were already being debated, particularly after the April 8 Supreme Court verdict regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor's delayed assent to Bills.

Understanding Article 355

  • Text of Article 355:
  • Article 355 reads: "It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution."
  • This provision imposes a duty on the Union but does not itself specify the procedures to be followed to enforce this duty.
  • Nature of Provision:
  • Directive in Nature: Article 355 is framed as a duty or obligation upon the Union, not as a direct grant of power to interfere in State matters.
  • Declaratory and Non-Self-Executing: It declares what the Union ought to do, but it does not, by itself, authorize or mandate direct action without following further constitutional mechanisms.
  • Linked to Article 356: Action based on Article 355 often leads to the invocation of Article 356 (President’s Rule), which can be imposed only when the President, based on objective material, is satisfied that there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State.
  • No Automatic Judicial Enforcement: Courts cannot directly order the Union to act under Article 355, since it is a matter of executive assessment and satisfaction.

Key Judicial Observations by the Supreme Court

  • No Judicial Compulsion on the Executive:
  • The Court clarified that it cannot force the Union Government to invoke Article 355 or 356, as decisions regarding national security, internal disturbances, and constitutional governance fall within the exclusive discretion of the executive branch.
  • Doctrine of Separation of Powers:
  • The Court strongly reinforced that the Indian Constitution envisages a strict separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
  • The executive holds the authority to decide when emergency provisions are to be triggered.
  • The judiciary’s role is limited to reviewing executive action after it is taken, ensuring constitutional compliance.
  • Judicial Review is Post-Facto:
  • The Court emphasized that while it can scrutinize the executive’s decision after it is made (i.e., judicial review), it cannot preemptively direct the executive to take or not take a particular course of action.
  • Wider Debate on Judicial Limits:
  • The Court acknowledged that recent events, particularly the Tamil Nadu Governor's case, have brought questions about the extent of judicial intervention into sharp focus.
  • It used the opportunity to caution itself and other courts against encroaching into domains constitutionally assigned to other organs of the State.

The Larger Constitutional Debate (April 8 Verdict Context)

  • Tamil Nadu Governor's Delay:
  • The Governor of Tamil Nadu had withheld or delayed assent on 12 Bills passed by the State Legislature for an unreasonably long period.
  • The State government moved the Supreme Court seeking remedy against the Governor’s inaction.
  • Supreme Court's Use of Article 142:
  • Under its extraordinary powers conferred by Article 142 ("to do complete justice"), the Supreme Court declared that 10 of the Bills were deemed to have been assented to, thus becoming law automatically.
  • Criticism of Judicial Overreach:
  • This verdict triggered significant debate.
  • Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the move, describing it as “judicial overreach”, arguing that the Court had entered the domain of the executive, thereby violating the principle of separation of powers.
  • Many legal scholars raised concerns that even though the judiciary’s intentions may have been corrective, setting deadlines for constitutional authorities (like Governors) was a significant expansion of judicial power.
  • Balance Between Efficiency and Federalism:
  • While some hailed the Court for preventing deliberate obstruction of democratic processes by Governors, others worried that judicial activism could lead to systemic imbalance between different branches of government.

Implications for Indian Polity

  • Centre–State Dynamics:
  • The judgment reasserts that emergency provisions like Articles 355 and 356 can only be invoked by the executive branch, based on its independent assessment.
  • Judiciary’s refusal to interfere protects State autonomy and prevents a dangerous precedent where courts could direct imposition of President’s Rule or Union intervention.
  • Checks and Balances:
  • The Court’s observations affirm that every organ of the government must stay within its constitutional limits.
  • Judiciary should ensure that executive decisions adhere to constitutional standards, but cannot itself dictate executive decisions unless there is a clear violation.
  • This promotes healthy checks and balances without allowing any branch to dominate another.
  • Federalism:
  • Indian federalism is based on a delicate balance between Union and State powers.
  • Preventing easy invocation of emergency provisions (Articles 355/356) ensures that States are not subjected to arbitrary Central intervention.
  • Upholding federal values is critical for maintaining India’s pluralistic democracy where regional diversity is respected.
  • Democratic Governance:
  • The episode highlights the need for constitutional authorities like Governors and the Union Government to act responsibly and promptly within their defined powers.
  • If Governors delay assent to Bills for political reasons, or if the Union invokes emergency provisions casually, it undermines the principle of responsible and representative government.
  • Judicial restraint, in this case, protects the spirit of democracy by ensuring that issues are handled within the proper constitutional framework rather than through forced interventions.

 

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/we-are-alleged-of-encroaching-upon-parliamentary-executive-functions-justice-gavai/article69474177.ece