What's New :
All India PT Mock Test 2025 (OMR Based)
15th April 2025 (11 Topics)

Judicial overreach, not constitutional interpretation

You must be logged in to get greater insights.

Context

The Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, invoked Article 142 to set time limits for gubernatorial assent to Bills, raising concerns about judicial overreach and the federal structure.

Separation of Powers:

  • Judicial Overreach: The ruling bypasses Articles 200, 201, and 74 by directing timelines for assent and mandating advisory opinions.
  • Rewriting the Constitution: Courts cannot insert provisions (like time limits) which require formal constitutional amendment under Article 368.
  • Scope of Article 142: Article 142 enables doing “complete justice,” but cannot be used to override express constitutional provisions.

Federalism and States’ Rights:

  • Lack of State Representation: The judgment impacts all states but was passed without issuing notice to them.
  • Centralisation of Power: Judicial directive allowing mandamus against the President dilutes state autonomy in legislative processes.
  • Distortion of Article 143: Advising the President is the Cabinet’s prerogative, not the judiciary’s.

Judicial Process and Accountability:

  • Violation of Article 145(3): Constitutional issues must be heard by a Constitution Bench (minimum five judges), not a two-judge bench.
  • Legislative Retaliation Risk: Possibility of parliamentary action to regulate judicial functioning under Article 145(1).
  • Erosion of Constitutional Morality: Expanding “constitutional morality” without textual basis raises legitimacy concerns.

Practice Question

Examine the constitutional validity and implications of the Supreme Court’s recent verdict in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. In light of this, critically analyse the limits of judicial power under Articles 142 and 145, and the doctrine of separation of powers in India.

X

Verifying, please be patient.

Enquire Now