Ambedkar Jayanti Reflection - Judicial Overreach and the Evolving Indian Constitutional Order

Context:

• The Constitution, once a symbol of deliberation and balance, is now allegedly being reshaped not by Parliament or the Executive—but by the Judiciary, the very institution meant to uphold it.
• Therefore, re-examining the Constitution in light of B.R. Ambedkar's legacy—which embodies limited powers, checks and balances, and democratic accountability—is imperative on this Ambedkar Jayanti (April 14).

Judiciary vs. Federal Structure - A Critical Lens on a Recent Verdict:

• Background: Delay in gubernatorial assent to Bills in Tamil Nadu.
• Judicial action: In the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to:
  • Set time limits for governors to assent to Bills (affecting Article 200).
  • Assert that the President “ought” to seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143.
  • Create grounds for a mandamus against the President if advice is not followed.
• Implication: This dramatically reinterprets Articles 200, 201, 74, and 143, bypassing the Council of Ministers and placing the Judiciary at the centre of legislative decisions.

Key Constitutional Concerns:

• Erosion of separation of powers:
  • The Supreme Court has seemingly overstepped by re-legislating, not interpreting.
  • Bypasses Article 74, where the President acts on Cabinet advice.
  • The suggestion that courts can direct or compel the President dilutes executive authority.
• Violation of federal norms:
  • The ruling affects all states, yet no state was heard during the proceedings.
  • The Judiciary acting suo motu threatens federal consultation and cooperative federalism.
• Procedural lapses in judicial conduct:
  • Article 145(3) mandates a constitution bench (5 judges) for substantial constitutional questions; the verdict came from a two-judge bench.
  • Undermines constitutional procedure and may set a dangerous precedent.

Broader Implications for Democracy and Governance:

• Judicial supremacy vs constitutional morality:
  • The Judiciary has taken a moral high ground to justify expansion of power.
  • Raises questions: Who interprets morality? Can it override constitutional procedure?
• Potential legislative pushback: Parliament, under Article 145(1), can regulate SC procedures:
  • Create laws regarding bench formation, case listing, and judgment timelines.
  • May trigger institutional friction between Parliament and Judiciary. 

Recommendations and Way Forward:

• Need for larger bench review: Any state can seek a review of the verdict based on:
  • Lack of notice to other states.
  • Decision by less than five judges on a constitutional matter.
  • Judicial amendment of the Constitution—without Parliamentary approval under Article 368.
• Call for judicial restraint:
  • Upholding constitutional order requires judicial discipline, not judicial activism.
  • A living Constitution must not be a shapeshifting Constitution.

Conclusion - A Disservice to Ambedkar’s Legacy:

• Ambedkar cautioned against the “grammar of anarchy”.
• Current developments risk replacing it with the grammar of judicial supremacy.
• On Ambedkar Jayanti, the judiciary must introspect: Are they upholding the Constitution, or rewriting it?

Q1. Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142 in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case on the doctrine of separation of powers.

Ans. The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to impose time limits on gubernatorial assent undermines the separation of powers by encroaching into the legislative and executive domains.

Q2. How does the recent Supreme Court ruling affect the federal structure of the Indian Constitution?

Ans. The ruling alters the federal balance by allowing the Judiciary to override constitutional provisions like Article 200 without consulting affected states, thereby weakening cooperative federalism.

Q3. Why is the decision in this case seen as a deviation from constitutional procedure under Article 145(3)?

Ans. The case involved substantial constitutional interpretation but was decided by a two-judge bench instead of the required five-judge Constitution Bench, violating Article 145(3).

Q4. Examine the constitutional validity of imposing time limits on governors for Bill assent through judicial interpretation.

Ans. Imposing time limits judicially on governors contravenes Article 368, which mandates that such amendments be made only by Parliament.

Q5. What does the phrase “grammar of judicial supremacy” signify in the context of this judgment?

Ans. It signifies the unchecked expansion of judicial power beyond constitutional limits, effectively allowing the judiciary to reshape governance without democratic accountability. 

Source:IE