Supreme Court's Bold Ruling: A Game Changer for Legislative Processes in India

A Landmark Decision by the Supreme Court

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding the conflict between Tamil Nadu's Governor RN Ravi and the DMK government over the approval of Bills is a significant testament to the judiciary's resolve. The Court has effectively countered the Governor's apparent political maneuvering to delay Bills beyond a reasonable timeframe. Following this, the Supreme Court established a 90-day deadline for the President to act on any Bills sent to Rashtrapati Bhavan, marking a crucial step in maintaining the balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, in their ruling, referenced Article 143 of the Constitution, suggesting that the President should seek the Supreme Court's guidance when a Governor reserves a Bill due to perceived constitutional issues. While the Court acknowledged that its opinion is not obligatory for the government to follow, it emphasized that such opinions carry significant persuasive weight and should generally be respected by both the legislature and the executive.

This raises an important question: what has motivated the Supreme Court to assert itself so decisively against both the Governor and the President, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis? This ruling suggests that the President may need to consult the Supreme Court for clarity on constitutional matters, particularly regarding the swift handling of Bills passed by state legislatures and forwarded by Governors. This decision coincides with the unsettling discovery of a large sum of burnt cash at the residence of Delhi HC Judge Yashwant Verma, prompting speculation about whether the judiciary is attempting to restore its reputation.

Critics argue that the Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries, encroaching on executive functions under the guise of judicial prudence. However, the Court clarified that when a Bill is reserved due to constitutional concerns, the executive should refrain from acting unilaterally. It is expected that the Union executive will not take on judicial roles in assessing a Bill's validity and should instead refer such matters to the Supreme Court under Article 143. The Court firmly stated that it has no reservations about asserting that the executive's hands are tied when it comes to legal questions surrounding a Bill, affirming that only constitutional courts have the authority to evaluate and advise on a Bill's constitutionality.

These statements are indeed powerful and perhaps necessary in today's climate, where the executive often appears to seek favorable judicial outcomes. For the health of Indian democracy, it is crucial that the three branches—legislature, executive, and judiciary—operate independently rather than aligning their interests.