The Hindu Editorial Analysis
11 December 2025
A Verdict that is an Abdication of Judicial Function
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 8)
Topic : GS Paper II – Polity & Governance | Judiciary | Separation of Powers
Context
The editorial critiques the Supreme Court’s judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference (2024) concerning the power of Governors and the issue of fixing timelines for constitutional authorities.
The author argues that the judgment, though rooted in textual fidelity to the Constitution, represents a judicial abdication — a refusal by the Court to exercise its role as the guardian of constitutional morality and functional balance among institutions.
1. The Core Issue – Absence of Constitutional Timelines
- The Indian Constitution is largely silent on specific time-limits for actions by high constitutional authorities like the:
- President of India (Article 111),
- Governors (Article 200), and
- Speakers under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law).
- While these offices perform quasi-judicial or constitutional functions, delay in exercising such powers (e.g., Speakers not deciding on disqualification cases, Governors sitting on Bills) leads to constitutional paralysis.
- The absence of time-bound frameworks has allowed these offices to subvert the spirit of accountability embedded in the Constitution.
Example:
Several Speakers have indefinitely delayed rulings on defection cases, effectively extending the tenure of defectors without penalty. Similarly, Governors have withheld assent to Bills or failed to act, disrupting State governance.
2. The Anomaly and Its Consequences
- The non-prescription of timelines enables constitutional functionaries to stall democratic processes.
- This anomaly raises a constitutional question:
Can the inaction or delay of a constitutional authority negate the intent of the Constitution itself? - Inaction undermines Article 14 (Rule of Law) and Article 21 (Right to Good Governance) by creating executive or legislative gridlock.
Judicial Function Neglected:
The author argues that it was the Supreme Court’s duty to interpret the Constitution dynamically and fill such procedural gaps to safeguard democratic principles.
3. The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
- The Court held that the Constitution intentionally refrains from prescribing any time-limits in Articles like 200 and 201, implying judicial restraint in imposing them.
- It reasoned that imposing a judicial timeline could encroach upon the domain of other constitutional offices.
- However, the author finds this stance ironical and regressive, as it legitimizes executive inaction — allowing Governors to nullify duly passed laws by simply withholding assent indefinitely.
Critical Observation:
“The Court has effectively ceded its review power, allowing constitutional subversion in the name of textual fidelity.”
4. The Irony and Implications
- The verdict’s effect is to empower Governors at the cost of elected legislatures, undermining federalism and separation of powers.
- The judiciary’s reluctance to impose limits has indirectly endorsed executive obstruction, contrary to the doctrine of constitutional morality espoused by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
- Constitutional morality demands that institutions act in good faith and timely manner to preserve democratic balance — something the judgment fails to uphold.
Impact:
- Governors may now indefinitely delay Bills without consequence.
- Speakers may continue to evade anti-defection decisions, allowing political manipulation.
- This leads to erosion of trust in constitutional governance.
5. Dr. Ambedkar’s Warning and Constitutional Morality
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, during the Constituent Assembly debates (Nov 4, 1948), had warned that the “form of administration” can pervert the “form of the Constitution.”
- He urged future courts to ensure that constitutional morality guides the interpretation of every provision.
- The author suggests that the Supreme Court, by refusing to evolve procedural safeguards, has ignored Ambedkar’s moral vision.
Doctrine of Constitutional Morality (UPSC Concept):
It requires all constitutional actors to act with integrity, responsibility, and restraint — ensuring that procedure serves purpose and not political convenience.
6. The Way Forward
- The author calls for judicial leadership in prescribing reasonable timelines for:
- Governors to decide on Bills,
- Speakers to rule on defections, and
- Election Commissions to act on disqualifications.
- This would align with Article 142 (complete justice) and uphold constitutional efficiency.
- Judicial hesitation, he warns, will only embolden future executives to exploit procedural silences for partisan ends.
Conclusion
“The Court’s restraint, in this case, has become its weakness.”
The editorial concludes that the Supreme Court’s textual fidelity has come at the cost of constitutional functionality.
By refusing to set procedural timelines, it has indirectly validated institutional paralysis, weakening both democracy and public faith in constitutional remedies.
The need of the hour is for the judiciary to reclaim its moral and corrective authority, ensuring that every constitutional office remains accountable, time-bound, and responsive to democratic governance.