The governor’s rule and the broken compass of SC?

Constitutional Crossfire

In a political atmosphere, anger is currency and discourse has become a gladiator sport, and the Supreme Court’s decision on the governor’s role in the Indian state has sparked fire. Some of them are worth it, many of them are disturbingly disrespectful. Let us clearly say that criticism of judgment is not only allowed, but is crucial to constitutional democracy. But in this age of hashtags and calories, the dignity of disagreement is rapidly disappearing.

As a legal professional dedicated to constitutional integrity and institutional balance, I find myself in double discomfort, one, the content of the trial, followed by the act of criticism of it.

The heart of this matter

The Supreme Court’s announcement, while a good declaration in an attempt to curb political abuse of the governor’s power, appears to have slipped into the constitutional territory reserved for the enforcement and legislature. It has a long shadow on the doctrine of separation power – which is engraved not only in our constitutional conscience, but is crucial to the functioning of our federal structure.

The role of the governor is historically derived from discretion, but is bound by constitutional morality, not to conduct micro-management in judicial practice. The court’s detailed directives (bordered by the provisionality) can be considered judicial overreach, an invasion of the political bush that is usually attempted to avoid. Are we moving towards the judiciary that increasingly explains, intervenes and ultimately imposes?

Someone might ask: “The Supreme Court attempted to limit arbitrary litigation, ultimately expanding its discretion?

After all, it is ironic that it is not always poetic, it may also be constitutional.

Disagreement

However, despite the controversial advantages, judgments should be challenged by substance rather than slander. Instead, what we witness is a very familiar person who is attacking individually, ridiculing memes and ideological slander. This is not a criticism, but a battlefield.

We forget that the judiciary is different from the political class and cannot be answered through a press conference or a television debate. It can only speak through its judgment. The robe that is different from Kurta does not have a microphone.

As students of the Constitution, as officials of the courts, and more importantly, as citizens, we must protect the sanctity of dialogue. We can dissect reasoning, challenge precedents, and even need to be reviewed, but don’t let us undermine the notion of justice with vocabulary.

Crazy way

There is a way for each institution’s tasks. The governor’s discretion must be exercised within the constitution. However, these scopes are examined through political accountability and legislative responses rather than judicial substitution.

What judgement may miss is the subtle dance of democracy – even controversial governor behavior must be tested by political consequences, legislative resistance or administrative remedies. Courts cannot always replace corridors of power.

This does not mean that the judiciary must abdicate. This means it must be calibrated. In the past, courts have challenged great challenges in the constitution, whether it is Kesavananda Bharati or SR Bommai cases and other such constitutional political overlap. Now, it must revisit this clarity, rather than casting a shadow on the verdict with activism disguised.

Let us criticize like constitutionalists

Criticizing the court is not about devalue it. Defending its dignity is not about accepting every decree. We must remember that the strength of our Republic lies not only in strong institutions but among responsible citizens.

This is not a silent appeal. This is a call for civilization.

Let our pens be sharp, but not shallow. Let our arguments sting, not sting. And let our dissenters intentionally, not destructively.

Because the Constitution is not only a rule book, but also a culture of respect and a way of life for every Indian.

Time to revisit the governor’s judgment: the case of constitutional review

I think the latest decision of the Supreme Court on the role of the governor deserves a thorough review and reconsideration of the Constitutional Bench. The ruling raises some constitutional issues worthy of judicial introspection.

1. Reservation of consent and reservation to the President: The court ruled that the governor’s act of re-enacting the bill without an amendment was illegal. In paragraph 211, it declares actions such as Ab Ab Ab, as the bill was reconsidered by the Legislature and has not changed.

However, this reasoning seems to be flawed. For the President’s reservation, the court distinguished between the amended and the uninvested bills. This distinction is not supported in Article 200 of the Constitution. There is no such classification in the provision, and this interpretive innovation creates the basis for a strong constitutional review.

2. Judicial timeline for enforcement actions: The court implemented a strict timetable in paragraph 250, requiring the governor to take action on the bill within one month and the president decided within three months. These schedules enforced by Article 142 are significantly inspired by practice Pakistan. However, the similarity with Pakistan is a country widely believed to be struggling with constitutional stability and rule of law, which is wrong in context and unreasonable in constitution. As a mature constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, India cannot borrow precedent from jurisdictions where the democratic system remains fragile. Furthermore, using Article 142 to legislate and implement actions without constitutional amendments or parliamentary debates has expanded the judiciary and undermined the careful balance between government branches. This alone can be reviewed by a constitutional judge.

Although judicial efficiency is required, it stipulates the legislation or execution timeline under the judiciary, dangerously stepping on the rewriting of the constitutional building. This is a solid foundation for seeking reconsideration.

3. Limitations on governor’s power: The court correctly clarified that the governor could not exercise a “pocket veto” under Article 200. This article is consistent with the Constitutional Plan and is welcomed.
4. Article 142 and separation of power: The court also cited Article 142 to declare that from the date of its original filing, ten bills have become law. Although such power exists for “complete justice”, the use here can be said to violate the doctrine of separation power. Judiciary cannot play legislative functions under the guise of constitutional correction.

The judgment aims to uphold constitutional discipline, and inadvertently disturbs the federal balance by over-reducing the governor’s discretion space. Despite its attempts to curb abuse, it may also limit legitimate execution functions.

While the Council does not have to modify Article 200 or 201 immediately, it is very likely that the judgment will be retained and mention the larger bench. If not, legislative intervention may be necessary to prevent distortions in the executive and parliamentary operations.

All in all, the judgment is good faith, but it is constitutionally controversial. This is the perfect candidate for respecting legal reviews, not political mockery.

End of the article