Context

• The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a watershed moment in the country’s constitutional jurisprudence.
• Not only did it assert judicial authority over the executive’s inaction, but it also sought to restore the sanctity of democratic legislative processes in the federal structure of India.
• By invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court undertook the unprecedented step of fixing time limits for gubernatorial and presidential assent to State Bills.
• This move, while historic, has stirred significant debate regarding the separation of powers and the evolving scope of constitutional interpretation.

The Significance of the Judgment

• This landmark verdict centres around the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution, which define the roles of Governors and the President concerning State legislation.
• The Court emphasised that Governors are not autonomous veto-wielders but constitutional functionaries expected to uphold the legislative will of the people.
• By ruling that neither the Governor nor the President can indefinitely delay their response to Bills, the Court set in motion a profound recalibration of executive-legislative relations at the State level.
• The judgment explicitly refuted the notion that Governors possess the authority to obstruct the legislative process.
• It underscored that the power to return a Bill for reconsideration must be exercised within a reasonable timeframe, and once the legislature reiterates its decision, the Governor is constitutionally obligated to provide assent.
• Similarly, Article 201 obligates the President to either grant or withhold assent or seek further reconsideration, again within defined limits.
• The Court, therefore, sought to address the procedural ambiguity that had previously allowed for executive stalling.

Judicial Innovation, Constitutional Interpretation, Accountability, and the Need for Reasoned Orders

• Judicial Innovation and Constitutional Interpretation
  • A core feature of this judgment is its progressive interpretation of constitutional provisions.
  • Indian constitutional law has long favoured a dynamic and purposive reading of the Constitution, and this verdict continues in that tradition.
  • The Court rejected the idea of reading the Constitution in a rigid or mechanical fashion, opting instead for an organic approach that aligns with evolving democratic ideals.
  • The precedent cited from A.K. Gopalan (1950) to K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) illustrates the judiciary’s evolving understanding of rights and governance.
  • Similarly, this case required a panoramic view that moved beyond textualism to safeguard the democratic will of State legislatures.
  • Drawing upon recommendations from the Sarkaria Commission and foundational judgments such as Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974), the Court reaffirmed the principle that Governors must act on the advice of the elected State government, and cannot exercise personal discretion to stall laws.
• Accountability and the Need for Reasoned Orders
  • One of the most notable contributions of the judgment is the insistence on reasoned orders when withholding assent.
  • The Court categorically rejected the idea of ‘simpliciter withholding’ of Bills, calling instead for transparent and accountable decision-making by constitutional functionaries.
  • The ruling not only removes the perceived immunity of the Governor and the President in legislative processes but also reinforces the principle that all constitutional actors are subject to judicial review.
  • In doing so, the Court has affirmed that ‘complete justice’ under Article 142 includes the power to ensure that democracy is not subverted by procedural delay or executive indifference.
  • The concept of ‘deemed assent,’ though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, was creatively constructed by the Court to fill the lacuna created by such inaction.

Critical Reflections and Suggestions

• Despite its merits, the judgment has not escaped criticism.
• The Governor of Kerala, among others, has accused the Court of overreach, arguing that the judiciary has intruded into the domain of the executive and Parliament.
• However, such criticisms appear misplaced when viewed through the lens of constitutional pragmatism and necessity.
• The Court did not legislate but rather interpreted existing provisions in light of democratic imperatives.
• Nevertheless, the judgment prompts a few constructive suggestion First, the sheer length of the verdict, 414 pages, raises concerns about accessibility and efficiency.
• In crucial constitutional matters, the Court could adopt the practice of issuing shorter, more focused judgments, as seen in the UK Supreme Court's Miller decision on Brexit, which spanned just 24 pages.
• Clarity and promptness are vital in moments of political and constitutional uncertainty.
• Second, the Court must enhance its internal procedural mechanisms to handle similar cases more efficiently.
• The post-verdict request by the State of Kerala for a similar ruling underscores the need for better case management.
• Grouping related matters before a single Bench would ensure consistency, reduce redundancy, and enhance judicial coherence.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor case stands as a monumental affirmation of democratic values and judicial courage.
• It corrects long-standing structural imbalances in the Indian federal setup, asserting the principle that elected legislatures must not be held hostage by constitutional functionaries.
• By embracing purposive interpretation and asserting judicial oversight over executive inaction, the Court has paved the way for a more accountable and people-centred constitutional order.
• As India’s democratic framework continues to evolve, such bold and thoughtful adjudication will remain essential to maintaining the delicate balance between power and accountability.