Why in the News?

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference (Article 143) has stirred major debate. The core issue: Can the Court prescribe timelines for constitutional authorities such as Governors, Speakers, and the President?

The Court refused to set any timelines — which many view as judicial restraint, while others see it as judicial abdication, especially because governance paralysis around anti-defection cases and withheld Bills is worsening.

Constitutional Silence on Timelines

Constitutional gap

The Constitution assigns crucial decision-making functions to:

• President
• Governors
• Speakers (under Tenth Schedule)

…but specifies no timelines for:

• Deciding defection cases
• Acting on Bills
• Returning Bills for reconsideration
• Assenting to legislative decisions

Problem

This “silence” leads to:

• Abuse of discretion
• Constitutional deadlock
• Deliberate delays for political benefit

Key Constitutional Anomalies Identified

a) Delay in Anti-Defection Proceedings

• Speakers act as quasi-judicial authorities under the Tenth Schedule.
• No deadline → cases remain pending for months or even entire tenures.
• Result: MLAs who defect continue in office with no consequences.

→ Undermines anti-defection law & legislative integrity.

b) Governors Withholding Bills

Governors in several States have:

• Sat on Bills indefinitely
• Returned Bills without reasons
• Blocked duly passed laws → effectively nullifying the legislature

This creates governance paralysis and raises questions:

• Can Governors withhold Bills indefinitely?
• Is inaction a form of veto?
• Should timelines be constitutionally mandated?

The Supreme Court’s Verdict: What It Said

The Court held that:

• Article 200 (Governor’s assent) does NOT prescribe timelines
• Therefore, Courts should not create timelines
• Doing so would amount to “judicial legislation”

But the consequence is serious:

The verdict extends unrestrained discretion to Governors and Speakers, enabling:

• Legislative paralysis
• Executive obstruction
• Violation of democratic mandate

The Irony in the Verdict

The article points out a deep contradiction:

What the judgment intended	What it actually enables
Judicial restraint	Constitutional authorities blocking legislatures
Respect for constitutional text	Administrative subversion
Avoiding overreach	Weakening founding ideals

The Court focused on literal interpretation, while ignoring:

• Purpose of provisions
• Constitutional morality
• Impact on democratic functioning

Constitutional Morality & Ambedkar’s View

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that:

• Form of administration is inseparable from the Constitution’s spirit
• Legislatures + constitutional authorities must uphold public conscience
• Courts must ensure the founding values are preserved

Thus, failure to interpret constitutional silence in line with constitutional morality is dangerous.

The Verdict as an Abdication

The article argues that the Court should have:

a) Interpreted constitutional silence purposively, not textually

b) Prevented abuse of power by constitutional authorities

c) Laid down guiding principles or reasonable timeframes

Instead, the judgment:

• “Ceded” judicial power to Governors
• Encouraged constitutional paralysis
• Strengthened avenues for political manipulation
• Weakened anti-defection enforcement

Implications for Centre–State Relations

The verdict may lead to:

• Continued friction between elected State governments & centrally appointed Governors
• Erosion of cooperative federalism
• Increased litigation on assent/referral processes
• Potential collapse of legislative autonomy in States

Conclusion

The Court’s hesitation to prescribe timelines has far-reaching consequences:

• It enables delays that undermine democratic processes
• Weakens the anti-defection framework
• Encourages constitutional functionaries to act arbitrarily
• May distort the balance of power envisioned by the Constitution

Ultimately, safeguarding constitutional morality requires judicial intervention, not judicial withdrawal. The verdict is thus seen as a missed opportunity to protect democratic values and prevent institutional abuse.

Source: A verdict that is an abdication of judicial function – The Hindu

UPSC CSE PYQ

Year	PYQ
2013	The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention?