Context:

• The Constitution, once a symbol of deliberation and balance, is now allegedly being reshaped not by Parliament or the Executive—but by the Judiciary, the very institution meant to uphold it.
• Therefore, re-examining the Constitution in light of B.R. Ambedkar's legacy—which embodies limited powers, checks and balances, and democratic accountability—is imperative on this Ambedkar Jayanti (April 14).

Judiciary vs. Federal Structure - A Critical Lens on a Recent Verdict:

• Background: Delay in gubernatorial assent to Bills in Tamil Nadu.
• Judicial action: In the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to:
  • Set time limits for governors to assent to Bills (affecting Article 200).
  • Assert that the President “ought” to seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143.
  • Create grounds for a mandamus against the President if advice is not followed.
• Implication: This dramatically reinterprets Articles 200, 201, 74, and 143, bypassing the Council of Ministers and placing the Judiciary at the centre of legislative decisions.

Key Constitutional Concerns:

• Erosion of separation of powers:
  • The Supreme Court has seemingly overstepped by re-legislating, not interpreting.
  • Bypasses Article 74, where the President acts on Cabinet advice.
  • The suggestion that courts can direct or compel the President dilutes executive authority.
• Violation of federal norms:
  • The ruling affects all states, yet no state was heard during the proceedings.
  • The Judiciary acting suo motu threatens federal consultation and cooperative federalism.
• Procedural lapses in judicial conduct:
  • Article 145(3) mandates a constitution bench (5 judges) for substantial constitutional questions; the verdict came from a two-judge bench.
  • Undermines constitutional procedure and may set a dangerous precedent.

Broader Implications for Democracy and Governance:

• Judicial supremacy vs constitutional morality:
  • The Judiciary has taken a moral high ground to justify expansion of power.
  • Raises questions: Who interprets morality? Can it override constitutional procedure?
• Potential legislative pushback: Parliament, under Article 145(1), can regulate SC procedures:
  • Create laws regarding bench formation, case listing, and judgment timelines.
  • May trigger institutional friction between Parliament and Judiciary. 

Recommendations and Way Forward:

• Need for larger bench review: Any state can seek a review of the verdict based on:
  • Lack of notice to other states.
  • Decision by less than five judges on a constitutional matter.
  • Judicial amendment of the Constitution—without Parliamentary approval under Article 368.
• Call for judicial restraint:
  • Upholding constitutional order requires judicial discipline, not judicial activism.
  • A living Constitution must not be a shapeshifting Constitution.

Conclusion - A Disservice to Ambedkar’s Legacy:

• Ambedkar cautioned against the “grammar of anarchy”.
• Current developments risk replacing it with the grammar of judicial supremacy.
• On Ambedkar Jayanti, the judiciary must introspect: Are they upholding the Constitution, or rewriting it?