SC Cleared 10 Bills Using Article 142

General Studies Paper-2

Context: The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to pass 10 Bills pending with Tamil Nadu Governor effectively granting assent to them.

About

• The Court exercised its rare powers to do “complete justice,” bypassing the Governor’s role in the lawmaking process.
• The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot delay or withhold assent to Bills indefinitely once they are passed or re-passed by the state Assembly.
• The ruling set a timeline for the Governor to act on Bills:
  • One month for re-passed Bills.
  • Three months if the Bill is withheld contrary to Cabinet advice.
• Significance: The ruling redefines the relationship between the Centre and states, curbing the power of Governors and reinforcing the authority of state legislatures.

What is Article 142?

• Article 142 of the Indian constitution is a provision that empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.
  • It also makes such decree or order enforceable throughout the territory of India.
• The importance of Article 142 lies in the following aspects:
  • It enables the Supreme Court to exercise executive and legislative functions in certain situations, such as issuing guidelines, directions, or orders to the government or other authorities.
  • It allows the Supreme Court to intervene in matters of public interest, human rights, constitutional values, or fundamental rights, and to protect them from any violation or infringement.
  • It enhances the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of the constitution and the final arbiter of the law.
• Criticism: It may encroach upon the principle of separation of powers and the domain of the executive and the legislature, and may invite criticism of judicial overreach or activism.

How are the Bills Passed by the Governor?

• Article 200 provides that when a Bill passed by the State Legislature, is presented to the Governor, the Governor shall declare:
  • that he assents to the Bill;
  • or that he withholds assent there from;
  • or that he reserves the Bill for the President’s consideration;
  • or the Governor may return the Bill (other than a Money Bill) with a message for re-consideration by the State Legislature.
• Reconsidered Bill: If the bill is returned by the Governor for reconsideration and the Legislature passes it again without any change, the Governor is constitutionally bound to give assent.
• The Governor cannot then reserve it for the President’s consideration under Article 200.
• Reserving the Bill: If the Governor reserves a Bill for President’s consideration, the enactment of the Bill then depends on the assent or refusal of assent by the President.
• Article 201: The President shall, under Article 201—, either declare his assent or withhold his assent thereto.
  • Instead of following either of these courses, the President may (if the Bill is not a Money Bill) direct the Governor to return the Bill together with a message to the State Legislature for reconsideration.
  • The State Legislature shall then reconsider the Bill within 6 months of its receipt and, if it is again passed, it shall be presented again to the President for his consideration.
• In contrast with the power of the Governor regarding a reconsidered Bill, it is not obligatory for the President to give his assent to a reconsidered Bill.

Concerns of the States

• Interference in State Autonomy: States argue that the Governor’s role in reserving bills for the President undermines the autonomy of state legislatures, especially when the bills are in the State List.
  • Misuse of Discretion: There are concerns that Governors reserve bills contrary to the advice of the State Council of Ministers, leading to misuse of discretionary powers.
  • Subordination to Union Executive: States view the Governor’s ability to refer bills to the President as subordinating state legislative authority to the Union Executive.
  • Delays in Decision-Making: Many states complain of delays in the President’s decision on reserved bills, which affects the timely enactment of laws.
  • Lack of Clear Guidelines: States suggest that there should be clear guidelines for the Governor and Union Government to prevent arbitrary use of discretion.
  • Impact on Federalism: Some states believe that Articles 200 and 201, which allow the Governor to reserve bills, are inconsistent with the true federal structure of India.

Conclusion

• There were demands to establish clear, uniform guidelines for the Governor’s discretion in reserving bills, ensuring transparency and consistency in decision-making.
• Introducing time-limits on the duration of passage of bills will ensure timely formation and implementation of policy and will also strengthen the federal structure of India.