SC TN Bills Verdict: Judicial Overreach Explained with Context
Rashtrapati Bhawan, Supreme Court of India, and Tamil Nadu Raj Bhawan (Image credit X.com)
Is the SC Verdict on TN Bills Judicial Overreach? Context and Implications
By R Narayanan
Defining the acceptability of judicial overreach requires a nuanced approach that considers multiple dimensions and perspectives amid raging debate around the Supreme Court judgment on Tamil Nadu’s pending bills.
The Supreme Court order on the Governor keeping bills reserved for consideration of the President indiscriminately and without any time sensitivity, leading to bills passed by the state legislature not seeing the light of day, stated two things.
Firstly, the order made the Governor’s act unacceptable and stated that laws would be deemed to have passed.
Secondly, it says that the Supreme Court ought to be approached for advice if the bill violates the principle of federalism.
This is surely a case of judicial overreach. The court has unilaterally made a decision that such bills would be deemed to have passed without properly considering the merits of the provisions. The court has further provided a time limit of three months without any specific law to that extent.
Thirdly, it is forcing the union executive to seek advice from the judiciary on whether the bill violates principles of federalism. This has created a lot of debate around judicial overreach —regarding separation of powers, accountability of judges, and also seen as causing political instability.
Opinion: SC TN Bill Verdict Distorts Constitutional Federalism
These debates are often without much understanding of the context. In this context of overreach, understanding when it is acceptable and when it is not is crucial.
Given our parliamentary form of government, combined with federalism and an independent judiciary, defining the acceptability of overreach requires a nuanced approach that considers multiple dimensions and perspectives.
For example, in the current case of the Supreme Court order that nullified the Governor’s reservation of bills for over a couple of years, there is a context. The context is the overreach by the Union Executive, through the offices of the Governor, delaying and denying the implementation of bills passed by the state legislature.
A pattern exists where such cases of overreach by the Union Executive are seen only in states not governed by the political coalition ruling at the Union level.
In other words, the contestation is between the political mandate obtained at the Union level versus that obtained at the state level. Furthermore, this is also an overreach in the context of democratic principles that need to be upheld at the level of state governance, especially when the bills pertain to subjects listed as state subjects.
Hence, the judicial overreach has a context — it is reacting and responding to the Union Executive’s overreach, and the aim is to uphold federalism and local-level democracy principles. Nevertheless, if this judgment survives beyond the current context of the Union Government’s political dominance, the overreach will be viewed differently — as of today.
When I read most articles, I have mixed feelings. What’s very clear is that there is a lack of understanding among common people on such issues.
Firstly, people feel that the Governor’s decisions are purely the Governor’s and have nothing to do with the role of the Union Government. Secondly, the role of the President is seen as the President’s only, and that the President shall have to act in accordance with the advice of the Union Council of Ministers is not well understood.
Perhaps, the President, individually, may not even know any of these issues, as all decisions are taken by the council of ministers in the name of the President under Articles 74 and 77.
Thirdly, the notion that the judiciary is unaccountable and self-appointing contributes to perceptions of overreach, which is empirically untrue. Many decisions of the Court are criticized for favouring the Government rather than being objective.
Decisions like these are rare, at least in the recent past. The idea that the Union Government should appoint the judiciary overlooks the fact that the Government is the primary litigant in most cases that reach the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the independence of the judiciary is a cardinal principle of the Constitution. What’s important is educating people and citizenry on these issues.
What’s unfortunate is that there are no editorial recommendations in most articles published in the press these days, likely due to a paucity of editors of the calibre we’ve seen in the past.
SC Tamil Nadu Verdict: Can Judiciary Usurp Legislative Powers?
(This is an opinion piece; views expressed in the article solely belong to the author)
Join the WhatsApp Channel of The Raisina Hills
Follow on Google News https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqBwgKMNK2vwsw39HWAw?hl=en-IN&gl=IN&ceid=IN%3Aen
About The Author
