A verdict that is an abdication of judicial function, Pg6

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court's judgment on the 16th Presidential Reference has sparked debate regarding timelines for constitutional authorities.
• The court's deference to constitutional language is viewed by some as an abdication of its duty to interpret the Constitution for modern times.
• The Constitution lacks specified timelines for actions by authorities like the President, Governors, and Speakers.
• The absence of timelines for Speakers to decide on defection petitions can undermine the anti-defection law.

Detailed Insights:

• The Constitution's silence on timelines for actions by Governors has led to disputes, including Governors withholding legislative business.
• The Supreme Court's verdict favors not imposing timelines, potentially allowing Governors to block laws passed by elected State Assemblies.
• Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for constitutional morality to be integrated into the Constitution and adopted by citizens.
• Ambedkar cautioned against perverting the Constitution by altering the form of administration, citing the risk of omitting administrative details.
• The delay by Speakers in ruling on defections and Governors delaying bills exemplify constitutional perversion.
• The Court's hesitation to set timeframes for constitutional functionaries may undermine the Constitution's founding ideals.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Constitutional Morality: Adherence to the spirit and values of the Constitution, ensuring its principles are upheld.
• Anti-Defection Law: Prevents political defections by elected members, ensuring stability in governance.
• Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.