Supreme Court Warns Against Inaction by Democratic Institutions

Fast Summary

• Supreme Court Commentary: Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai emphasized the judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional authorities discharge their duties, regardless of their rank or stature.
• Presidential Reference hearing: The hearing focused on delays by Governors in clearing State legislation, spotlighting tension between Opposition-led States and Governors.
• April 8 SC Judgment: Supreme Court had ruled to limit the time Governors and the President can keep Bills pending to three months, stating indefinite delays harm governance.
• Solicitor-General’s Argument: Tushar Mehta criticized this deadline as overly rigid and counterproductive due to varying complexities of Bills in different States.
• Key Debate points:

– Solicitor-General argued that courts shouldn’t interfere with law-making or compel Governors’ assent decisions but acknowledged most historical assent cases were resolved within a month.
– Chief Justice clarified courts coudl not dictate how decisions are made but could mandate timely decision-making.
– Attorney-General supported discretion for Governors but questioned if “endless withholding” without any message was viable under constitutional norms.

Indian opinion Analysis

The discussions around governance delays underscore broader challenges in maintaining a functional balance between various constitutional roles. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its position as the custodian of constitutional principles, aiming to safeguard democratic processes when other wings falter. Though, arguments from both sides highlight complex nuances – effective checks must consider variations across laws while respecting federal dynamics. Any judgment stemming from this case is likely to influence governance practices and State-Governor relations nationwide, perhaps reshaping legislative workflows amidst rising political polarization.

Read more at The Hindu.