State Bills, timelines
The answer of the Supreme Court of India to the Presidential reference, under Article 143, is disquieting and goes against federal principles (Front page, November 21). The decision of the Constitutional bench has the potential to lead to an anarchic state of affairs. If a Governor of a State indefinitely sits on Bills passed unanimously by the Legislature, there is now very little that the courts can do. The Court has said that a Governor cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, and in such circumstances, limited judicial review is permissible directing the Governor to pass orders within a reasonable time. This is precisely what the Justice J.B. Pardiwala-led Bench had done earlier by fixing a three-month period. In matters affecting democratic principles such as federalism, swift action is paramount.
The Court has virtually upended the rule of law as a Governor can now, at his will, subvert the democratic will of the people expressed through the Legislature. This decision is a massive setback to the constitutional vision as the Executive can now play its own card. A fixed timeline has to be prescribed
N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai
The Court’s verdict was expected to settle a persistent constitutional irritant. Instead, it delivers a reprimand without a remedy. The Court affirms that Governors cannot hold Bills indefinitely, yet it pointedly avoids prescribing even a minimal timeline, leaving intact the ambiguity that has enabled Raj Bhavans to convert inaction into political leverage.
The federal implications are hard to miss. It is largely non-BJP-ruled States that have borne the brunt of prolonged gubernatorial inaction, often at politically sensitive moments. When unelected authorities can slow-walk legislation without consequence, the balance of Indian federalism tilts subtly, but significantly, against States, especially those outside the ruling coalition at the Centre.
M. Jameel Ahmed,
Mysuru