Historic Judgment on Governor's Role
The Supreme Court’s ruling in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu was historic, as it addressed the Governor's ability to block state laws.
The Court emphasized that the Governor cannot withhold assent to Bills that reflect the people's will, as passed by the state legislature.
The judgment used Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure "complete justice" and imposed a time limit for both the Governor and the President to respond to Bills passed by the State legislature.
This ruling was significant as it limited the discretionary powers of the Governor and set clear expectations for the executive's role in the legislative process.
Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions
The Court’s approach to interpreting the Constitution is not mechanical; it is flexible and adjusts according to each situation.
Constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a way that balances federal interests with the people’s will.
In this case, the Court interpreted Articles 200 and 201, which concern the powers of the Governor and President in relation to Bills passed by the State legislature, to ensure their actions are timely and justified.
The ruling reflects a broader, modern understanding of constitutional law, in which the Court adapts provisions to meet present-day challenges and needs.
Governor and President’s Accountability
The Court identified a gap in the Constitution: there was no time limit for the Governor or President to act on Bills.
To address this, the Court set a clear deadline for the Governor and President to respond to Bills, ensuring a timely legislative process.
Additionally, the Court ruled that when the Governor or President decides to withhold assent to a Bill, they must provide a reasoned order for doing so.
This judgment removed the idea that the Governor or President could simply refuse assent without explanation, making the process more accountable and transparent.
Suggestions for Future Adjudication
The Court could benefit from delivering shorter judgments in critical constitutional cases, as lengthy rulings can delay justice.
The Court should also consider grouping similar cases together and having the same Bench hear them, ensuring consistency in rulings and clearer guidance.
This approach would provide greater certainty and clarity, particularly when the cases deal with important constitutional issues, such as the powers of the Governor and President.
COMMENTS