The verdict of the Supreme Court has raised some questions | Photo credit: Manvender Vashist Lav
Periodic friction among the three arms of government (executive, legislature and judicial) has been a characteristic of democracies for the sinks of years. Therefore, the current rectification of the plates between them in India is not surprising. However, what is surprising is the lack of reintegration and discretion on the part of each of the participants.
To begin with, the governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, hero as many of 10 bills approved by the Legislature. Judge JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court observed in their ruling earlier this month that the governor, under article 200, is not empowered to delay invoices for such long periods. The judges also observed that the governor must send laws to the president only in cases where democratic principles are threatened. The prerogatives of both the governor and the president have been subject to scrutiny in the past, as in 1987 when President Zail Singh refused to send the postal bill. As for the governor’s actions, it was an unbridled exercise of a power for very special cases.
In this case, the state government went to the Supreme Court, which strongly criticized the governor. However, the Apex court will apply to its authority by directing the President to eliminate said bills within three months. The debate now is whether he has the power to do so. At least, it is not necessary to have established a time limit. That could lead to an amendment to the Constitution that only Parliament can do. The Supreme Court also invoked its power under article 142 of the Constitution that allows it to enforce its orders. In response, the vice president, whose office imposes on the owner a duty of silence or less discretion in constitutional matters, intervened with a strongly drafted criticism of the court. In summary, all in the constitutional firmament, fighting with everyone, are found in what can only be called a more improper show.
Conflicts of this type are inherent to a democracy, but they can and should be established in silence without public problems. Even if the original error were the governor of Tamil Nadu, the others could have been carried out with cortumpiospion. In the past, when the Indira Gandhi government entered into a persistent conflict with the established practice, especially in the field of the fundamental rights of the states, the differences were silently resolved by playing a key intermediary role. Such matters for judicial intervention were rarely produced. But in the last three decades, this style has replaced the leg with unnecessary confrontation and litigation. Consequently, such as the Governors, the Supreme Court, now there is also a role that was not provided by the Constitution. As for the legislatures, they have tended to become boxing or wrestling rings. The executive has been looking for ideological objectives that have exacerbated friction. The three arms of the State must establish a better example of themselves to restore public faith in them.
Posted on April 20, 2025