A legislative declaration of democracy

• The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu has led to unprecedented legislation passing without the Governor or President’s assent.

• The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure “complete justice” and set a time limit for gubernatorial and presidential responses to State legislature bills.

• Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution were interpreted, stating that the Governor cannot override laws that reflect the people’s will.

• The judgment has been criticized by the Governor of Kerala, who believes the Court has overstepped Parliament’s domain and exceeded its authority.

• The Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is organic and requires imaginative construction to balance the interests of the States and the people of India.

• The judgment, rendered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R.Mahadevan, demonstrates constitutional modernity and realism.

• Article 200 of the Constitution outlines the Governor’s duties with respect to State legislature bills, including giving assent, withholding, or making a reference to the President.

• Article 201 outlines the President’s obligations on reservation of the Bill for her consideration, including giving assent or withholding it, and directing the Governor to return the Bill to the President.

Requirement of Reasoned Order in Constitutional Adjudication

Constitutional Text and Time Limit

• The constitutional text lacks a time limit for Governor or President to carry out their prescribed function.

• The Court has been compelled to fix the time limit for gubernatorial and presidential decisions on the Bills.

• Certain actions or inactions under these provisions cannot escape judicial scrutiny.

The Concept of deemed assent by the President

• The idea of deemed assent by the President was a constitutional synthesis, for which Article 142 of the Constitution provides a strong foundation.

• The judgment relied on the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) which stated that nonconformity of a state Bill to the policy of the Union Government is not always a safe ground for withholding presidential assent.

Requirement of Reasoned Orders

• The Court underlined the requirement to have reasoned orders when constitutional functionaries choose to decline assent.

• The idea of “simpliciter withholding” of the Bills was rejected, removing the perceived immunity attached to the Governor and the President in the legislative process.

Critique of Court’s Jurisdiction

• The criticism that the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in the given case is misconceived.

• The Court could reject the idea of “unfettered discretion” in referring the Bills to the President, as laid down in B.K. Pavitra vs Union of India (2019).

Suggestions for Future Considerations

• The Court should deliver shorter judgments within a shorter span of time in critical constitutional adjudication.

• A system should be in place to club similar matters together so that the same Bench hears the cases together.