SC’s 3-month timeline in Governor verdict was adopted from Centre’s own guidelines, Pg10

Key Highlights:

• Supreme Court (April 8 judgment) upheld a 3-month timeline for the President to decide on Bills reserved by Governors.
• Court based this on the Centre’s own 2016 Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
• These OMs were aimed at addressing undue delay in presidential decisions under Article 201.
• Court clarified that this timeline was in line with constitutional accountability, not judicial overreach.
• Centre’s current Presidential Reference questions whether such a timeline can be imposed on the President judicially.

Detailed Insights:

• Context: The case involved Tamil Nadu Governor’s delay in forwarding State Bills to the President. The Centre questioned SC’s authority to set a timeline under Article 201 (which lacks explicit mention of time limits).
• SC's Rationale: The 3-month rule was not an imposition, but an adoption of existing administrative guidelines laid down by the Centre itself (OMs dated February 4, 2016).
• OM Details:
  • Timeline of 3 months to dispose of State Bills.
  • Ministry concerned must report to MHA in 15 days; delays must be justified within a month.
  • Objections and responses to be shared within 3 weeks to avoid postponement effects.
• Judgment Basis: Court cited Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, reinforcing that time-bound disposal ensures accountability and prevents legislative paralysis.
• Constitutional Alignment: Court emphasized that procedural timeframes are not antithetical to Article 201; instead, they aid in functional discharge of constitutional responsibilities.

Key Concepts:

• Article 201: Deals with the President’s power to assent, withhold, or return a State Bill reserved by the Governor.
• Office Memorandum (OM): Internal government directive outlining administrative timelines and procedures.
• Constitutional Morality: Adherence to principles of accountability, transparency, and responsiveness in governance.

Significance:

• Strengthens the idea of time-bound governance in constitutional processes.
• Reinforces the Supreme Court’s interpretative role in filling procedural gaps where the Constitution is silent.
• Exposes contradiction in Centre’s stand—challenging the very timeline it had earlier institutionalized.
• Aims to curb executive arbitrariness and uphold legislative supremacy of elected Assemblies.

SC strikes down retrospective environmental clearances, Pg12

Key Highlights:

• Supreme Court held that ex post facto (retrospective) Environmental Clearances (ECs) are grossly illegal.
• Struck down the 2017 and 2021 Office Memorandums (OMs) of the Centre that enabled such clearances.
• Court emphasized that development cannot override environmental safeguards.
• ECs must be obtained before starting or expanding any project.
• The concept of retrospective EC is against fundamental principles of environmental law and EIA Notification (1994).

Detailed Insights:

• Background: NGOs challenged government circulars allowing post-facto ECs, which legalized illegal constructions started without prior clearance.
• Court clarified that such retrospective regularisation violates environmental jurisprudence as it legitimizes unlawful acts.
• 2017 and 2021 OMs were found to be attempts to bypass legal compliance and encourage ecologically harmful practices.
• SC Reasoning:
  • Ex post facto clearance fails to ensure prior environmental risk assessment.
  • Violates “precautionary principle” and “sustainable development” norms.
  • Encourages impunity among project proponents.
  • Even ongoing or completed projects found in violation cannot be retrospectively legitimised.

Key Concepts:

• Ex Post Facto Clearance: Granting environmental approval after a project has already begun or been completed—now deemed illegal.
• Environmental Jurisprudence: Legal principles that prioritize environmental conservation and the public trust doctrine.
• EIA Notification, 1994: Mandates prior EC for projects likely to impact the environment.
• Precautionary Principle: Preventative action must be taken in face of environmental risk, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established.

Significance:

• Reaffirms the role of the judiciary in upholding environmental law and disciplining regulatory lapses.
• Sends a strong message against regulatory shortcuts and industrial violations.
• Reinforces the constitutional mandate under Article 48A and 51A(g) for environmental protection.
• Impacts both existing and future infrastructure projects, ensuring greater legal compliance and environmental due diligence.

Mains Mock Question:

“Should the President and Governors be bound by time limits while assenting to State Bills? Discuss in light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment and the constitutional principles it upholds.”