[Answered] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s emphasis on ‘constitutional politics’ over ‘party politics’ for constitutional position holders, and its implications for federalism and the rule of law in India.

Introduction

In a landmark verdict delivered on April 8, 2024, in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, the Supreme Court underscored the constitutional mandate that governors and other constitutional authorities must follow “constitutional politics”, not “party politics”. This ruling emerges amid growing tensions in Centre–State relations, especially where political parties differ, and redefines the contours of cooperative federalism.

Constitutional Framework and the Case

The judgment interprets “Article 200” (Governor’s assent to Bills) and “Article 163” (aid and advice of the Council of Ministers) to introduce reasonable time limits—three months to act on a Bill, and one month if the legislature re-passes a withheld Bill. Though Article 200 prescribes no timeline, the Court invoked a “purposive interpretation” to introduce the concept of “right to time”, stating that “functionaries are bound by reasonable deadlines”.

Implications for Federalism and Rule of Law

1. Curtailing Arbitrary Discretion: The ruling addresses the misuse of the “pocket veto”, where governors indefinitely delay assent, subverting elected legislatures. It reinforces the “S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994)” principle that constitutional offices cannot be used for partisan purposes.
2. Restoring Constitutional Morality: The Court warned that governors must not serve the “party that appointed them”, but act as “bridges, not bottlenecks” in Centre–State relations.
3. Prioritizing Due Process Over Analysis: Citing the work of Dan Lovallo and Olivier Sibony, the Court emphasized that “process matters more than analysis”, reaffirming the essence of the “rule of law”.

Challenges Persist

1. Political appointments to Raj Bhavans compromise neutrality.
2. The absence of constitutional penalties for delay weakens enforceability.
3. According to PRS Legislative Research (2023), over 20 State Bills were pending with governors for over six months.

Way Forward

1. Implement Punchhi Commission (2010) recommendations for fixed timeframes for gubernatorial assent.
2. Codify norms on governor conduct to prevent misuse of Article 163.
3. Ensure judicial review for unreasonable delays and promote Parliamentary oversight.

Conclusion

The judgment lays a historic foundation for “reclaiming constitutional spaces from political encroachment”. For India@2047, it is imperative that constitutional authorities uphold “constitutional morality”, reinforce federal balance, and operate within time-bound democratic accountability. Only then can the promise of the Constitution be meaningfully realized.