SUPREME COURT ARTICLE 142: POLITY
NEWS: Why SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Guv stands out: Sparingly used powers invoked, strong message sent
WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to bypass the Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in assenting to 10 state Bills, ensuring they become law. This move reasserts state legislative authority and limits the discretionary power of Governors, strengthening federalism.
Context
• The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to clear the way for 10 Bills that were passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly but had remained pending with the Governor without action.
• The intervention was in response to concerns over inordinate delays by Governors in granting assent, which was leading to policy paralysis in the states.
• The case brought into focus the constitutional boundaries of the Governor’s discretionary powers and the responsibility to act in a time-bound manner on legislative matters.
Supreme Court’s Action and Key Rulings
• The Court used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to ensure the pending Bills were deemed to have received assent, thus becoming enforceable law.
• It emphasized that Governors cannot keep Bills in abeyance indefinitely after they are passed or re-passed by the legislature.
• The Court introduced specific timeframes to be followed by Governors when dealing with Bills, aiming to curb arbitrariness and delays.
• For Bills that are re-passed after being returned by the Governor, the Governor must act within one month.
• For Bills withheld contrary to cabinet advice, the Governor must act within three months.
• The ruling redefined Centre-State relations by limiting the discretionary powers of Governors and strengthening the autonomy of elected state governments.
Understanding Article 142
• Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order or decree necessary to do complete justice in any matter before it.
• This provision is unique to the Indian Constitution and allows the Court to address gaps in law or extraordinary circumstances where rigid application of existing laws would lead to injustice.
• It enables the Court to frame guidelines, issue directives, and perform quasi-legislative functions where public interest or constitutional values are at stake.
• Article 142 has been used in landmark cases involving environmental protection, human rights, and institutional reforms.
• Critics argue that its use can sometimes breach the principle of separation of powers and lead to judicial overreach into executive or legislative domains.
Governor’s Role under Article 200
• When a Bill is passed by the State Legislature, it is presented to the Governor, who has four options under Article 200.
• The Governor can give assent, withhold assent, return the Bill (if it is not a Money Bill) for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.
• If the Governor returns a Bill and it is re-passed by the Legislature without any amendment, the Governor is bound to give assent.
• In such cases, the Governor cannot reserve the Bill again for the President, ensuring that the will of the elected legislature prevails.
President’s Role under Article 201
• When the Governor reserves a Bill for the President, the President may either give assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill to the Legislature (if it is not a Money Bill).
• If the Bill is returned and re-passed by the Legislature, it is presented again to the President, who is not constitutionally bound to give assent.
• This provision gives the Union Executive final say over certain State Bills, especially when they are reserved due to conflict with national interest or central laws.
Concerns Raised by States
• States argue that the power of Governors to reserve Bills for the President compromises the autonomy of state legislatures.
• There are complaints of misuse of discretionary powers by Governors, especially when they act contrary to the advice of the State Cabinet.
• Referring Bills to the President can make state governments dependent on the political will of the Union Executive, undermining the federal structure.
• Long delays in decision-making, both at the Governor and Presidential levels, lead to legislative uncertainty and administrative inefficiency.
• The absence of a clear timeline or accountability framework for Governors and Presidents in processing Bills creates opportunities for arbitrary use of power.
• States have called for reforms to restore the true spirit of federalism and reduce political interference in the legislative process of states.
Significance of the Supreme Court’s Intervention
• The judgment brings in procedural certainty and constitutional discipline in the functioning of Governors regarding their role in assenting to State Bills.
• It safeguards the legislative sovereignty of elected State Assemblies and upholds democratic principles.
• The decision reaffirms the supremacy of constitutional morality over political considerations in governance.
• It strengthens the federal structure by limiting the role of appointed Governors in obstructing the will of the elected governments.
• The judiciary is recognized as a corrective mechanism in situations where constitutional functionaries fail to discharge their duties fairly and promptly.
Way Forward and Recommendations
• There is a need to codify clear guidelines on the scope and limits of the Governor’s powers regarding Bills passed by State Legislatures.
• Statutory time limits should be introduced for both the Governor and the President to act on Bills, ensuring prompt action and reducing legal uncertainty.
• Reforms should be initiated to bring greater transparency and accountability in the process of assenting to Bills, including written justifications for delays or reservations.
• A regular review mechanism should be established to monitor the status of Bills pending at the Governor’s or President’s office and ensure compliance with constitutional norms.
• Efforts should be made to insulate the Governor’s office from political influence and to reaffirm its role as a neutral constitutional authority.
• Strengthening cooperative federalism through consultation and trust between Union and State governments is crucial for smooth legislative functioning.
Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/why-sc-ruling-on-tamil-nadu-governors-powers-stands-out-sparingly-used-powers-invoked-strong-message-sent-9933048/