18 April 2025 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis
1. Balance is restored
(Source – Indian Express, Section – The Ideas Page – Page No. – 13)
| Topic: GS2 – Polity and Constitution |
| Context |
|
Judicial Vigilance and Constitutional Responsibility
- Judges and lawyers have long served as sentinels of the Constitution, scrutinizing state actions for legality and fairness.
- A striking example of this is the swift judicial response to the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, challenged almost immediately after its notification.
- This contrasts sharply with the inordinate delay in addressing the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction on bills pending since 2020.
- While the former case saw judicial attention within days, the latter lingered unresolved for nearly five years, highlighting the inconsistent pace at which constitutional issues are taken up—sometimes undermining the legislative intent and democratic urgency inherent in a five-year electoral cycle.
Inaction as a Threat to Federalism
- The delay in assent to bills by the Governor reveals a deeper constitutional danger.
- In a federal setup, the refusal—or in this case, silence—of a Governor who does not belong to the same political fold as the state government can stall governance and override the “will of the people.”
- With the expiry of a government’s term, pending bills lapse, making inaction a stealthy but powerful tool to nullify legislative processes.
- The Governor’s immunity from legal proceedings for official acts further complicates matters, leaving both citizens and elected governments with no recourse.
- The lack of a paper trail for inaction makes it even harder to contest in court, giving rise to a legally untraceable form of obstructionism.
Article 142: A Constitutional Breakthrough
- The Supreme Court’s landmark decision to invoke Article 142, which allows it to ensure “complete justice,” marks a pivotal moment in constitutional jurisprudence.
- Recognizing that Articles 200 and 201 do not permit a “pocket veto,” the Court declared the long-delayed bills as deemed assented.
- This innovative use of judicial power led the Tamil Nadu government to promptly notify the Acts.
- While some critics argue this constitutes judicial overreach, the Court’s action remains within constitutional bounds.
- Article 142 can be applied where there is legal or constitutional silence, not against existing statutory provisions.
- As the apex interpreter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s judgment, though open to critique, is binding unless overturned through appropriate constitutional mechanisms.
The Accountability of the Governor
- The judgment also squarely addresses the Governor’s conduct. The Supreme Court found mala fides in the Governor’s behavior, asserting that he showed a clear disregard for the authority of the judiciary and failed to uphold the dignity of his constitutional office.
- This raises pressing questions about accountability: should someone who has acted in bad faith continue to occupy such a high constitutional position?
- While political calls for his resignation have been made, they remain unmet, leaving a gap between moral and legal accountability.
Legal Recourse: Quo Warranto as a Remedy
- In the absence of voluntary resignation, the legal path forward could be a writ of quo warranto, which questions the legal basis on which a public official continues to hold office.
- This writ could serve as a tool to enforce accountability in cases of proven misconduct or mala fide action, potentially resulting in the Governor’s removal if the Court finds he no longer has the authority to remain in office.
- Such legal scrutiny aligns with the principle of “complete justice,” ensuring that constitutional offices are not shielded from responsibility.
Inaction as the New Constitutional Subversion
- A worrying trend in contemporary governance is the strategic use of inaction, rather than constitutional amendment, to sidestep legal and institutional boundaries.
- Since constitutional amendments can be struck down for violating the Basic Structure Doctrine, actors increasingly rely on silence, delay, and non-response to achieve political ends.
- This kind of evasion is difficult to challenge judicially, as it often leaves no tangible evidence.
- Compared to the U.S., where executive actions face immediate and rigorous judicial scrutiny, India has seen fewer challenges to such practices, allowing unconstitutional norms to quietly become entrenched.
Constitution as a Labyrinth, Not a Maze
- In closing, the Court’s assertion that the Constitution is a “labyrinth, not a maze” is a profound reminder that constitutional interpretation demands depth, not gamesmanship.
- The Constitution is an interwoven fabric of norms and responsibilities that uphold democratic governance.
- When followed faithfully, it leads to justice and order—not confusion or arbitrary outcomes.
- The judgment serves as a reaffirmation that the rule of law must prevail over convenience or political maneuvering, and that the Constitution, when read holistically, remains the strongest defense against authoritarian drift.
| Practice Question: In light of the Supreme Court’s recent invocation of Article 142 to address the Tamil Nadu Governor’s inaction on state bills, critically examine the constitutional implications of executive inaction and discuss the role of the judiciary in preserving the federal structure and democratic governance in India. (250 Words /15 marks) |
Read more – 17 April 2025 : Indian Express Editorial Analysis
