Context:

• The Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has attracted both criticism and praise. The debate centres on whether the Court should fix timelines for high constitutional authorities such as the President, Governors, and Speakers.
• The judgment emphasises strict adherence to the written Constitution, avoiding judicial innovation where the text is silent.
• However, critics argue that this reflects a reluctance to exercise the Court’s broader constitutional duty—interpreting the Constitution in a manner suited to present-day realities.
• Such judicial restraint, they warn, weakens the Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional accountability.
• The Constitution does not prescribe timelines for many crucial functions of constitutional authorities.
  • A key example is the Speaker’s quasi-judicial role under the Tenth Schedule, where they decide disqualification cases due to defection.
  • Despite the importance of these decisions, no time limits have been specified, often leading to long delays and political misuse.
• This article highlights how the Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has raised serious concerns about judicial restraint, constitutional accountability, and the misuse of constitutional silences by authorities such as Governors and Speakers.

The Lack of Timelines Creates a Constitutional Anomaly

• The absence of fixed timelines for key constitutional actions has produced a serious anomaly.
• Legislatures have a fixed five-year term, yet defection cases under the Tenth Schedule can remain undecided until the term expires — allowing defecting legislators to escape consequences entirely. This undermines the very purpose of the anti-defection law.
• Similar issues arise with Governors withholding assent or delaying action on Bills.
• While Governors may return a Bill for reconsideration, they cannot indefinitely sit on legislation and effectively block laws without justification.
• Such inaction contradicts the Constitution’s design, as only courts — not Governors — have the authority to invalidate legislative or executive acts.

The Irony in the Supreme Court’s Verdict

• The Supreme Court’s decision in the Presidential Reference ironically strengthens the very problem it was expected to resolve.
• By refusing to impose timelines on constitutional authorities — particularly Governors — the Court held that since Article 200 contains no explicit timeline, none should be read into it.
• This effectively legitimises Governors indefinitely withholding assent to Bills, allowing them to stall laws passed by elected Assemblies.
• In doing so, the Court not only ceded ground to the executive but also failed to recognise how constitutional silence can be misused to undermine democratic functioning.

A Missed Opportunity to Uphold Constitutional Morality

• The judgment also overlooks the doctrine of constitutional morality — a principle championed by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in 1948.
• He urged that constitutional morality must guide those interpreting and operating the Constitution so that its spirit prevails even where the text is silent.
• In recent years, courts have invoked constitutional morality to advance progressive values in cases such as Sabarimala (women’s entry) and LGBTQIA+
• Here, however, the Court declined to use that interpretive tool, missing an opportunity to protect the Constitution from misuse and ensure that its foundational ideals are upheld.

Ambedkar’s Warning and the Costs of Judicial Hesitation

• B.R. Ambedkar had cautioned that a Constitution could be subverted not by changing its text but by altering the form of administration.
• His warning is strikingly relevant today: Speakers delaying defection rulings and Governors withholding assent to Bills beyond the Assembly’s tenure exemplify how constitutional processes can be distorted without formally breaking the law.
• Ambedkar recognised that not every administrative detail could be written into the Constitution.
• Instead, he placed trust in future courts and institutions to uphold constitutional morality and protect the spirit of the document.
• Yet, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to mandate timelines for constitutional authorities undermines this very trust.
• By refusing to interpret constitutional silences in a way that prevents misuse, the Court risks enabling outcomes that contradict the Constitution’s purpose and democratic ideals.
• This moment serves as a reminder that constitutional morality — the principle Ambedkar saw as essential for the Republic’s future — remains far from fully realised in India’s political and administrative culture.