The recent Supreme Court ruling on the clearance of Bills by the President and Governors has ignited a fierce debate, with the Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, becoming the most prominent voice in criticizing the Court for setting deadlines for the Executive to act on these Bills. The case in question involved the Tamil Nadu Assembly's passage of 10 Bills, which had not received assent from the President or Governor. The Court utilized Article 142, which grants the judiciary the power to deliver "complete justice," in an unprecedented way to clear the Bills, bypassing the need for the President’s or Governor's signatures. This decision has raised significant concerns about judicial overreach, with Dhankhar arguing that it undermines the constitutional balance and encroaches on the Executive’s domain.
Dhankhar’s criticisms, delivered in an address to Rajya Sabha interns, were sharp. He stated that India was not intended to be a democracy where judges take on the roles of lawmakers or the Executive, describing Article 142 as a "nuclear missile against democratic forces." He further criticized its frequent use, remarking that the provision was "available to the judiciary 24x7," a veiled reference to the Court’s increasing reliance on this extraordinary power.
This ruling was part of a larger trend in which the Supreme Court, historically cautious in invoking Article 142, has recently made more frequent use of it. In 2024 alone, the provision was invoked three times. The April 8 judgment, which was passed by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, set a one-month deadline for Governors to act on state assembly Bills and a three-month deadline for the President to act on Bills referred to them by Governors. The decision also allowed Tamil Nadu to enact Bills without the President or Governor’s formal assent for the first time in India’s history.
The case involved a long-standing issue with Governor RN Ravi, who had withheld assent to several Bills, some of which had been pending since January 2020. The Court’s decision to impose deadlines for clearance and its invocation of Article 142 was hailed as a historic move by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, who celebrated the ruling as a victory for state governments. However, this approach has faced considerable pushback from legal experts, senior officials, and governors.
Kerala Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, for example, criticized the judgment, stating that the Constitution does not mandate that the Executive act within a specific timeframe on state legislature Bills. Concerns were also raised by government officials, who pointed out that the judgment dilutes the President's power of "absolute veto," a constitutional safeguard that allows the President to withhold assent to a Bill until it lapses. This veto power, they argue, ensures that state legislation does not contradict national interests or the Constitution. Furthermore, some critics have questioned whether the judiciary overstepped its bounds by compelling the Executive to act within a timeframe and whether this constitutes a violation of the constitutional separation of powers.
Legal commentators also voiced their objections, with Rajan Singh, an advocate at the Allahabad High Court, warning that the use of Article 142 could lead to the judiciary becoming overly involved in the machinery of governance, potentially leading to "unpredictable consequences." Attorney General R. Venkataramani also expressed concerns, emphasizing that the judgment was delivered without hearing the side of the President or the central government, which he argued is a critical component of the principle of justice.
On the other hand, some legal experts defended the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that it was justified by the circumstances. Former Attorney General KK Venugopal supported the judgment, asserting that the Court had been right to place the President and Governor on the same level of accountability. Senior advocates like Shadan Farsat and Rakesh Dwivedi noted that the decision clarified the ambiguous powers of the Governor and upheld the Constitution by ensuring timely action on Bills.
The debate on judicial activism versus judicial overreach is at the heart of the controversy. Judicial activism involves the judiciary proactively protecting citizens' rights, while judicial overreach occurs when courts exceed their jurisdiction, making decisions typically reserved for the Executive or Legislature. Critics of the Supreme Court's ruling argue that it crosses this line, encroaching on the Executive’s role in the legislative process and even making "judge-made laws." The Court's direct intervention in clearing Bills and setting deadlines for the President and Governors, some argue, exemplifies judicial overreach.
In response to the ruling, there is speculation that the Ministry of Home Affairs might file a review petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the judgment. The intense debate over the Court’s decision reflects broader concerns about the balance of power between the Judiciary and the other branches of government. The Vice President’s remarks highlight the growing unease among legal experts and political figures about the increasing influence of the judiciary over the legislative and executive functions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment has ignited a significant constitutional debate. While some defend the Court’s actions as necessary to ensure timely governance, others view it as an example of judicial overreach that undermines the separation of powers and judicial independence. As the legal and political discourse continues, the broader implications of this judgment for the future relationship between the judiciary, executive, and legislature remain uncertain.
