Supreme Court hearing on the President’s 14 constitutional questions,My views-Key conclusions & Recommendations

Based on the detailed analysis of the Supreme Court hearing on the President’s 14 constitutional questions, several key conclusions and recommendations emerge:

1. Balanced Hearing Time Allocation Needed: The Supreme Court has allocated equal time for both the Union government and opposing state lawyers. However, it is recommended that more time should be granted to state governments supporting the President’s reference, considering the gravity of the constitutional issues involved.

2. Respect for State Heads’ Constitutional Powers: The arguments emphasize the significant constitutional authority vested in the Governor under Article 200, including the power to withhold assent to bills. It is strongly recommended that the Court uphold and protect these powers rather than diminish them, as these are integral to the federal structure and the constitutional framework of India.

3. Judicial Caution Against Overreach: The Attorney General raised concerns about the Supreme Court potentially overstepping its jurisdiction, especially regarding Article 142, which cannot bypass other constitutional provisions. The recommendation is for the Court to exercise restraint and avoid decisions that effectively amend the Constitution or reframe fundamental powers.

4. Recognition of the Governor’s Role as State Head: Since Governors are appointed by the President and act as the state’s constitutional heads, it is essential to recognize their role as equal to the judiciary and legislature within the state. The Court should acknowledge that Governors are not subordinate officials but key constitutional authorities.

5. Need to Address Constitutional Precedents and Bench Decisions: The hearing revealed that the two-judge bench decision under scrutiny ignored prior larger bench rulings and constitutional provisions. It is recommended that the Supreme Court revisit and harmonize these precedents to avoid conflicting interpretations that weaken constitutional offices.

6. Implications for Federalism and National Security: The discussion highlighted risks if state legislatures pass laws without Governor’s assent, potentially affecting national security, foreign treaties, and the country’s sovereignty. The recommendation stresses maintaining the Governor’s veto power to prevent such threats.

7. Judicial Transparency and Public Awareness: Given the nationwide constitutional impact, it is recommended that the Supreme Court’s proceedings and reasoning be transparently communicated to the public, enabling citizens to understand and engage with these critical issues.

8. Judicial Appointments and Functioning: The text points to significant vacancies and delays in High Court appointments, especially in the Allahabad High Court, impacting judicial efficiency. There is a recommendation for the Supreme Court and relevant authorities to expedite appointments and strengthen the judiciary’s capacity.

9. Guarding Against Political or Ideological Bias: Concerns were raised about perceived ideological leanings influencing judicial decisions and speeches by retired judges. It is recommended that the judiciary maintain impartiality, uphold constitutional morality, and avoid politicization to preserve public trust.

10. Need for Constitutional Integrity Over Judicial Activism: The narrative suggests caution against judicial activism that could undermine social and moral fabric as understood in Indian society. The recommendation is for the Court to balance progressive interpretations with respect for cultural values and constitutional integrity.

In summary, the recommendations call for respecting constitutional roles of Governors and Presidents, careful judicial restraint, harmonization of precedents, safeguarding federalism, ensuring judicial transparency, timely judicial appointments, and maintaining judicial impartiality to protect India’s constitutional democracy.