Context:
- The Supreme Court’s verdict on the 16th Presidential Reference has drawn criticism for refusing to prescribe timelines for constitutional authorities such as the President, Governors, and Speakers.
- Critics argue that this approach may weaken constitutional governance, enable institutional delays, and dilute constitutional morality, especially in matters like defection proceedings and assent to Bills.
Key Highlights:
Judicial Interpretation vs Constitutional Silence
- The Court relied on the literal constitutional text, noting that the Constitution does not specify timelines for actions by authorities.
- This judicial restraint is viewed by critics as an abdication of interpretative responsibility in a modern constitutional democracy.
Role of Governors and Legislative Delays
- Governors delaying assent to Bills or withholding legislative business has emerged as a major governance concern.
- The verdict’s refusal to impose timelines may legitimize executive inaction, despite elected legislatures passing laws.
Anti-Defection Law and Speaker’s Role
- Speakers delaying decisions on defection petitions undermines the Tenth Schedule.
- Absence of deadlines allows political manipulation, weakening legislative stability and democratic accountability.
Constitutional Morality
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasized that constitutional functioning depends on constitutional morality, not merely text.
- Delays by Governors and Speakers represent constitutional perversion, even without textual violation.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Issue: Absence of constitutionally mandated timelines for key authorities.
- Causes:
- Constitutional silence on procedural deadlines
- Judicial reluctance to read timelines into the Constitution
- Government / Judicial Context:
- 16th Presidential Reference under Article 143
- Past SC interventions on Speaker’s delay (e.g., Keisham Meghachandra Singh case)
- Benefits of Timelines:
- Ensures institutional accountability
- Prevents misuse of constitutional discretion
- Challenges:
- Risk of judicial overreach
- Separation of powers concerns
- Impact:
- Weakening of anti-defection law
- Erosion of federal balance and democratic norms
Relevant Mains Points:
- Facts & Provisions:
- Article 143 – Presidential Reference
- Tenth Schedule – Anti-Defection Law
- Roles of Governor (Article 200) and Speaker
- Conceptual Clarity:
- Judicial Review: Duty to interpret constitutional silence contextually
- Constitutional Morality: Spirit over literalism
- Keywords: Judicial restraint, constitutional discretion, institutional accountability
- Static Linkages:
- Federalism
- Separation of Powers
- Rule of Law
- Way Forward:
- Judicially evolved reasonable timelines
- Parliamentary clarification through procedural laws
- Strengthening conventions and ethical conduct of constitutional offices
- Balancing judicial restraint with constitutional guardianship
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
- GS 2: Polity – Constitution, Judiciary, Federalism
- GS 2: Governance – Accountability of constitutional authorities