 |
|
The article delves into instances where the ‘Presidential Reference,’ a constitutional mechanism in India, has been invoked to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on complex matters. President Droupadi Murmu's recent decision to utilize this power, concerning the timelines for Governors to act on state Assembly bills, has brought the Presidential Reference back into the political spotlight. Historically, various governments, including those led by the Congress party, have employed this route to address vexing legal dilemmas with political ramifications, to gain clarity on pivotal Supreme Court judgements that impact policy and governance, or, at times, to offload politically sensitive and uncomfortable issues onto the Court's purview. The article meticulously examines past instances where the Presidential Reference was utilized, including the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, the Cauvery water row, the timing of elections following the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the alleged 2G license allocation scam. Each case illustrates the nuanced application of the Presidential Reference and the political context surrounding its invocation. The current political climate, with the Congress party largely silent on the current invocation, while its allies, such as Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and Left parties, criticize the Modi government's actions, highlights the ongoing political tensions and the strategic importance of the Presidential Reference as a tool within the Indian political system. Understanding these historical precedents is crucial for deciphering the motivations and potential implications of the current Presidential Reference, allowing for a more informed analysis of the ongoing debate surrounding the powers and responsibilities of the President and Governors in the Indian constitutional framework. The article navigates through complex legal and political terrain, providing readers with a valuable historical perspective on the Presidential Reference and its role in shaping Indian politics and governance. The author aims to provide an objective analysis of previous instances of its use to enhance readers comprehension of the current situation involving the use of the Presidential reference by the Indian president.
The Cauvery water dispute in 1991 serves as a prime example of the intersection of political considerations and legal adjudication through the Presidential Reference. The dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the sharing of Cauvery waters was not merely a matter of resource allocation but also a politically charged issue with significant regional implications. The Congress party, then in power in both Karnataka and at the Centre, faced the challenge of navigating the conflicting interests of the two states. The AIADMK's J. Jayalalithaa, who had recently assumed the Chief Ministership of Tamil Nadu, added another layer of political complexity to the situation. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal had directed Karnataka to release 205 tmcft of water to Tamil Nadu, but the Karnataka government, led by S. Bangarappa, responded by issuing an ordinance to override the tribunal's order. This act of defiance prompted the Presidential Reference, which sought the Supreme Court's opinion on the constitutional validity of the Karnataka ordinance and the tribunal's authority to grant interim relief. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Karnataka ordinance was beyond the state's legislative competence and upheld the tribunal's authority. This case underscores the Presidential Reference's role in resolving inter-state disputes and upholding the authority of central government-appointed tribunals, even in the face of political opposition from state governments. The strategic use of the Presidential Reference by the central government in 1991 demonstrated a willingness to intervene in state-level disputes to ensure adherence to established legal frameworks and prevent unilateral actions that could undermine national unity and resource management. The court decision was crucial in setting the groundwork for fair resolutions in water sharing disputes and affirmed the legal supremacy of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act.
The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in 1992 provides another significant instance of the Presidential Reference being used in a highly politically charged context. Following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Congress-led P.V. Narasimha Rao government faced immense pressure to address the situation and maintain social harmony. Rao's decision to take the Presidential Reference route was widely seen as a politically astute move aimed at both addressing the concerns of the Hindu community and deflecting criticism from the opposition BJP. The government acquired the disputed land and requested the Supreme Court's opinion on whether a Hindu temple existed on the site prior to the construction of the mosque. This move was intended to shift the responsibility for resolving the sensitive issue to the judiciary, allowing the government to avoid making a direct political decision that could alienate either the Hindu or Muslim community. However, the Supreme Court declined to be drawn into the political fray, stating that the Reference favored one religious community over another and did not serve a constitutional purpose. The Court struck down the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act and returned the Presidential Reference unanswered. This case highlights the limitations of the Presidential Reference as a tool for resolving politically sensitive issues when the Court perceives that the Reference is being used to advance a particular political agenda. The Supreme Court's refusal to answer the question preserved its neutrality and underscored its role as a guardian of constitutional principles, rather than an instrument of political maneuvering. Despite the failed attempt to resolve the dispute through the Presidential Reference, the case remains a significant example of the government's attempt to leverage the judiciary to address complex political challenges. The event and the related court cases further underscored the importance of secularism and the separation of powers in India's constitutional framework.
The Gujarat gas transmission Act of 2001 involved a Presidential Reference concerning the constitutional validity of a state law enacted by the Gujarat government. At the time, the BJP was in power both in Gujarat and at the Centre, making this case somewhat unique in that the Presidential Reference was essentially initiated by a government seeking clarity on the scope of its own powers. The issue at stake was whether the supply and distribution of natural gas fell under the Union List or the State List of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that natural gas was a Union subject and that the states did not have the legislative competence to enact laws on the subject. This case highlights the Presidential Reference's role in clarifying the division of powers between the Union and the states, ensuring that state laws do not encroach upon the legislative domain of the central government. The Court's decision affirmed the supremacy of the Union government in matters related to natural resources and underscored the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework for the distribution of legislative powers. This Presidential Reference served to reinforce the balance of power between the Union and the states, preventing potential conflicts and ensuring a consistent regulatory framework for the natural gas sector across the country. The case further reinforced the need for a clear understanding of constitutional boundaries in order to maintain a cohesive and well-defined system of governance.
The Gujarat elections in 2002, in the aftermath of the Gujarat riots, prompted another Presidential Reference concerning the timing of elections. The state BJP government wanted to hold early elections, but the Election Commission (EC) said it was not in a position to conduct elections before a certain date. This led to a Presidential Reference seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on whether the EC had the authority to determine the schedule of elections, even if it meant potentially violating the constitutional mandate to hold elections within six months of the last sitting of the Assembly. The Supreme Court upheld the EC's order, ruling that there was no constitutional mandate to hold elections within six months of the last sitting of an Assembly if the House was prematurely dissolved. The Court emphasized that Article 174, which deals with the summoning of the House, applies to live Assemblies and not dissolved Assemblies. This case underscores the Presidential Reference's role in resolving conflicts between different constitutional bodies, such as the state government and the Election Commission. The Court's decision affirmed the EC's independence and authority to ensure free and fair elections, even in politically sensitive circumstances. The outcome of this Presidential Reference had significant implications for the timing of elections in Gujarat and reinforced the importance of the EC's role in upholding the integrity of the electoral process. The decision upheld the necessity of unbiased election management and the significance of independent constitutional bodies.
Finally, the 2G telecom licences case in 2012 involved a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on the Supreme Court's order cancelling 122 2G telecom licences. The government sought clarity on whether auctions were the only permissible method for the disposal of all natural resources. The Supreme Court ruled that auctions were not the only permissible method, as this was merely an economic policy and not a constitutional mandate. The Court emphasized that it lacked the expertise to conduct a comparative study of different methods of resource distribution and that it respected the mandate and wisdom of the executive on such matters. This case highlights the Presidential Reference's role in clarifying the scope of judicial review and affirming the executive's authority in matters of economic policy. The Court's decision prevented the judiciary from overstepping its bounds and interfering with the government's ability to formulate economic policies that it deemed appropriate. This Presidential Reference served to reinforce the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive and to ensure that the courts do not unduly interfere with the government's policy-making prerogatives. The clarification that auctions were not the sole method for resource allocation provided the government with greater flexibility in managing natural resources and formulating economic policies tailored to specific circumstances. The comprehensive and diverse use cases of Presidential Reference underscores its significance in the Indian legal system and political landscape.
Source: Ayodhya, Gujarat 2002 polls, 2G – the times Presidential Reference was invoked earlier