16th Presidential Reference Verdict: Judicial Restraint or Abdication?

Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Context and Core Issue

  • The 16th Presidential Reference judgment has drawn mixed reactions regarding its constitutional implications.
  • The central issue concerns whether courts may fix timelines for duties of high constitutional authorities.
  • The judgment displays judicial restraint but appears to abdicate the interpretative duty required for evolving constitutional needs.

Constitutional Silence and Emerging Anomalies

  • The Constitution prescribes no timelines for actions by the President, Governors, or Speakers.
  • Speakers act as quasi-judicial tribunals under the Tenth Schedule but face no deadline for deciding defection cases.
  • This creates an anomaly where a member’s entire term may lapse without consequences for defection.
  • Several recent State episodes reflect this misuse, undermining the anti-defection framework.
  • Governors delaying assent to Bills also raises concerns, effectively stalling valid legislation without judicial scrutiny.
  • Constitutional design never intended Governors to block legislative will indefinitely.

Critique of the Verdict

  • The Court held that Article 200 contains no explicit timeline, discouraging judicial insertion of one.
  • This interpretation indirectly legitimises governors withholding Bills, weakening legislative authority.
  • The verdict risks ceding judicial review space and ignores how constitutional silence can be manipulated for unconstitutional ends.

Constitutional Morality and Ambedkar’s Warning

  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stressed the need for constitutional morality to guide administration and courts.
  • He warned that altering the form of administration could pervert constitutional principles.
  • Practices such as delayed defection rulings and withheld Bills are modern examples of such perversion.

Conclusion

  • Judicial hesitation to set reasonable timelines may produce self-defeating outcomes.
  • The episode highlights the continued need for constitutional morality to be internalised across institutions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top