Key Points
- Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict sets a three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by state governors, aiming to curb indefinite delays.
- Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar sharply criticizes the ruling, calling Article 142 a “nuclear missile” in the judiciary’s hands and warning against courts directing the President.
- The judgment is hailed as a milestone for federalism, limiting governors’ powers to block state legislation and reinforcing the constitutional balance between Centre and states.
- Debate intensifies over the separation of powers, judicial review, and the scope of Supreme Court authority under Articles 142 and 145(3).
- The controversy highlights ongoing tensions between India’s executive, legislature, and judiciary over constitutional interpretation and institutional limits.
New Delhi: The ongoing tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and its Governor over pending bills has escalated into a constitutional flashpoint, now drawing in India’s highest offices. The Supreme Court’s landmark April 8 judgment, delivered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor, set a strict three-month deadline for the President to act on bills reserved by state governors, ending decades of ambiguity and curbing the practice of indefinite delays.
What Triggered the Showdown?
The dispute began when Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi withheld assent to 10 bills passed by the state assembly, leaving them in limbo for years. The Supreme Court, responding to a writ petition from the Tamil Nadu government, ruled the Governor’s inaction as unconstitutional and clarified that the Governor must act within a reasonable timeframe specifically, within one month for most actions, and within three months for bills sent to the President.
For the first time, the court also mandated that the President must decide on such bills within three months, bringing unprecedented judicial scrutiny to the highest executive office.
Article 142 and the Limits of Judicial Authority
At the heart of the controversy is Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in any case. The court invoked this article to set binding timelines, arguing that it was essential to uphold the spirit of parliamentary democracy and prevent misuse of discretionary powers by governors.
However, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar has fiercely opposed this move. In a series of statements, Dhankhar described Article 142 as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24×7,” and warned against a scenario where courts could direct the President India’s highest constitutional authority on executive matters.
“We cannot have a situation where you direct the President of India. The only right you have under the Constitution is to interpret it, not to legislate or execute,” Dhankhar asserted, cautioning against the judiciary acting as a “super Parliament”.
Dhankhar also questioned the use of a two-judge bench for such a significant constitutional issue, suggesting that only a larger bench under Article 145(3) should decide matters of such gravity.
What Does the Verdict Mean for Federalism and Governance?
Legal experts and commentators have hailed the Supreme Court’s decision as a major victory for federalism and state rights, curbing the ability of governors and by extension, the Centre to obstruct state legislatures for political reasons. The judgment is expected to set a precedent for other states facing similar issues, with Kerala and Punjab having previously taken their governors to court over legislative delays.
The court’s detailed guidelines now require:
- Governors to act on bills within one month (or three months if reserved for the President).
- The President to decide on reserved bills within three months.
- Any further delay must be justified, and all actions are subject to judicial review under Article 201.
Separation of Powers: The Ongoing Debate
The episode has reignited debate over the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature. While the Supreme Court insists its intervention was necessary to prevent constitutional abuse, critics like Dhankhar argue that such judicial activism risks undermining democratic accountability and the unique roles of each branch.
The Supreme Court maintains that its directions are not judicial overreach but a constitutional necessity to ensure the smooth functioning of India’s federal structure and to prevent the paralysis of governance by discretionary delays.
