When The Judiciary Wears The Robes Of The Legislature

When the gavel begins to sound like a vote, and the robe starts to resemble a mandate, it is time to pause and reflect on the foundational architecture of our democracy. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu that has stirred the core of constitutional debate.

- SUJEET KUMAR AND RAJWARDHAN RANA

When the gavel begins to sound like a vote, and the robe starts to resemble a mandate, it is time to pause and reflect on the foundational architecture of our democracy. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu that has stirred the core of constitutional debate. In a move that shocked constitutional scholars and statesmen alike, the Court directed the President of India to respond to bills reserved by Governors within three months, failing which the bills could be treated as "deemed to have been assented."

It is not the fate of these bills alone that is at stake. The real concern lies in the judiciary's encroachment into domains constitutionally reserved for the executive. As Vice President Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar Ji, himself a seasoned constitutional expert, aptly remarked, this development reflects a dangerous transformation: the judiciary acting as a "super Parliament," unaccountable, unelected, and increasingly intrusive in matters far beyond its adjudicative role.

At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental misstep: the President of India, a constitutional office vested with defined powers and responsibilities, was neither represented nor heard during the proceedings. In a case that directly affects the functioning, discretion, and constitutional obligations of the Head of State, the absence of any formal representation from Rashtrapati Bhavan reflects a glaring procedural lapse. A constitutional court cannot decide on the scope of presidential powers in absentia, especially when the office in question takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." Due process, even in the name of judicial activism, cannot bypass the dignity of constitutional offices.