Supreme Court Judgment on Governor's Assent to State Bills

The recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a significant development in Indian constitutional law. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure "complete justice," setting a precedent by fixing a time limit for gubernatorial and presidential responses to Bills passed by State legislatures. This judgment has led to the passing of laws without the traditional assent of the Governor or President, an unprecedented event in India's history.

Key Aspects of the Judgment

• Interpretation of Articles 200 and 201:
  • Article 200 outlines the Governor's duties regarding State Bills, offering three options: assent, withholding assent, or referring the Bill to the President.
  • Article 201 details the President's obligations when a Bill is reserved for consideration, including the ability to give or withhold assent or return it with a message.
  • Both Articles lack a specified time frame for action, which the Court addressed by setting a deadline for decisions.
• Governor's Role:
  • The judgment emphasizes that the Governor cannot undermine laws reflecting the people's will, thus removing perceived immunities in the legislative process.
  • The Court rejected the idea of "simpliciter withholding" of Bills without reasoned orders.
• Judicial Review:
  • The judgment subjected actions or inactions by constitutional functionaries to judicial scrutiny, asserting that such actions should not escape judicial review.

Significance and Criticism

• Constitutional Modernity:
  • The judgment showcases a modern and realistic approach to constitutional interpretation, moving away from a mechanical reading of the text.
• Federalism:
  • It seeks a balance between central and state powers, emphasizing federalist principles.
• Criticism:
  • The judgment has faced criticism for allegedly overstepping judicial boundaries, though such critiques are considered misconceived by the Court.

Suggestions for Future Adjudications

• Brevity and Promptness:
  • The Court is encouraged to deliver concise judgments more swiftly, drawing on examples like the 24-page Brexit-related case of the U.K. Supreme Court.
• Internal Management:
  • It is suggested that similar cases be grouped and adjudicated together to ensure clarity and predictability in constitutional matters.