What to Read in Indian Express Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1:SC & Presidential reference

Context: The Supreme Court recently reserved its opinion on a Presidential Reference filed by President Droupadi Murmu regarding the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to legislative Bills. This comes after the apex court’s April 2024 judgment that struck down Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay and selective withholding of assent to Bills passed by the state legislature. The case has raised critical questions about the balance of power between the Union and states and the constitutional role of the President and Governors.

Background of the case:

• In April judgment, SC used its powers to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution to declare delay in granting assent to 10 bills by the Tamil Nadu governor as unconstitutional.  It also set timelines for Governors and President to act after the Bills reach their office.
• The President made the reference under Article 143 (1)to the SC. This Article allows the president to take the court’s opinion on the question of law or fact which is of public importance.
• Court‘s opinion is not binding on the President, it is merely advisory in nature.
• The April judgment has raised the broader issue of Separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive. This reference also involves the issues of Quasi-federalismwherein there are conflicts between powers of the State legislature to pass Bills and the Governor’s power to exercise constitutional discretion in granting assent to such Bills.

Nature of reference:

• The SC is not bound to give its advice in the references made by president under Article 143(1). Therefore, Centre must establish that this reference made by President involves the question of law or fact which is of public importance.
• The State argue that this reference seeks to relitigate the matter already decided by the SC.
• It is also argued that by making reference under Article 143(1) Centre is re-appealing against the SC ruling in April. The decisions of the SC are treated as the law of the land. They cannot be challenged before any court except the Supreme Court by filing Curative petition and review petition.
• The center may file review petition under Article 137, it must be heard by the same judges who delivered the verdict.  By making reference under Article 143 (1), Centre is seeking review by a different bench.
• Opposition argued that by making this reference, Centre is subverting the integrity of the court and the principle of stare decisis.
• The Centre argued that this reference was sought to clarify constitutional doubts that arose after the April ruling of SC.

Governor’s Power in the Indian Constitution:

• Under the Article 163,the Governor is bounded by the aid and advice of the states’ council of Ministers. This provision upholds the federalism by emphasizing that governance reflects the popular will. It upholds the principles of democracy.
• SC has in various constitutional ruling upheld this principle that gives primacy to the elected government.
• The Centre argued that Governor has a distinct role in constitutional framework. It is not intended the Governor act as mere” postman or showpiece” to always act on the advice of Council of Ministers.
• He is “ordinarily bound” by their aid and advice, but it is not “always binding”. The Governor has withhold his assent to only 20 bills out of total 17,000 billspresented for his assent between 19970 to 2025, with 90% granted assent within the first month. This highlights that the power of withholding the assent to the bill is sparingly exercised in rarest of the rare matters.
• One such case arose when Punjab Government in 2004 passed the bill to unilaterally terminate the tripartie river-water sharing treaty. This bill was withheld y governor. Later, SC declared the law unconstitutional.

Governor’s veto power:

• There is no timeline within which Governor must grant his assent. This allows the Governor to sit indefinitely on the bill. This is called pocket veto.
• SC held that Governor cannot exercise the pocket veto over the elected Government.
• Centre argued that if a bill is withheld indefinitely by the Governor, it will fall through. It also made reference to Government of India Act 1935, where the Governor’s “initial withholding was an absolute veto”. Centre argued that similar language was adopted in the Indian constitution.
• States argued that Governors are not the “Viceroys of the British Government”. And the colonial discretions given under the Act of `1935 were intentionally omitted from the Constitution.

Judicial Enforcement of Timelines:

• The constituent assembly had dropped the proposed six-week limit for assent with the statement “as soon as possible”. This was adopted to ensure that any deadlock regarding state bills should be resolved through dialogue between state and the Governor.
• By setting the fixed deadline for the passing of bills, SC ruling amounts to the constitutional amendment. This encroaches on the power of the Parliament to make constitutional amendments.
• State argued that the statement “as soon as possible” attaches a sense of urgency to the Governor’s duty under Article 200.  And the timelines set in April judgment indicate when judicial review would be available, not when automatic assent would occur.

State’s fundamental right:

• SC allowed the States to file writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution.
• The centre argued that article 32 was meant to protect fundamental rights and the state cannot claim these rights for themselves. Also, the Governors do not represent central government against whom the state sought to file writ petitions.
• States argued that Governor is regarded as a link between the union and the state. Thus it acts as the agent of the central government.

Way Forward:

The Supreme Court’s opinion on this Presidential Reference will shape the contours of Indian federalism. At stake is the delicate balance between the constitutional roles of legislatures, the executive and constitutional heads. The judgment is likely to reinforce that while the President and Governors are not mere rubber stamps, their discretion cannot be exercised to stifle democratic will. A principle of “reasonable time” for assent may emerge as a constitutional safeguard, strengthening both democracy and federalism.

 

Editorial 2:Subject to recent protest, history of Kolhan Tribe’s Manki-Munda system

Context: Recently the tribal belonging to Ho tribe in Jharkhand’s West Singhbhum district protested against the District collector. They accused him of interfering with their traditional self governance system by removing traditional hereditary village heads known as Mundas and Manki.

Traditional self governance system:

• Before the arrival of British, the Ho tribe has traditional, decentralized system of self governance that resolved various social and political disputes.
• There was hereditary-appointed Mundaat the village level who was responsible for resolving socio-political disputes among its members.
• The Mankiheaded the pidh, which generally comprised of eight to 15 villages, handled disputes that could not be resolved by Munda.
• This was purely internal dispute resolution set up, with no responsibilities of collecting revenue or resolving land ownership issues.

East India Company (EIC) era:

• After the Battle of Buxar in 1764, the EIC signed the Treaty of Allahabadwith Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II in  This granted the right to collect revenue in present –day Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, and Jharkhand.
• The Company enacted Permanent Settlement Act in 1793. This allotted land to Zamindars and fixed the revenue that had to be paid to the Company.
• These revenue demands were very high, putting immense pressure on Zamindars to collect revenue.
• In Kolhan, Zamindars began seizing the lands of Ho community. This led to many revolts in nineteenth century including the Ho (1821-22) and the Kol 91831) revolts.
• British changed their strategy after this.

Wilkinson’s rules:

• Thomas Wilkinson was appointed as political agent in the Kolhan Government State (KGE), an administrative set up created in 1837 to control the Ho-dominated area. He realized that it was important to co-opt the local leaders in the British system of Governance.
• He framed the set of 31 rules in 1833- called the “Wilkinson’s Rule”. They were meant to be the “guiding principles” for the traditional ho community leaders. This codification of powers of Mundas and Mankihas effectively turned them to British agents from the traditionally appointed leaders to resolve disputes.
• The population of outsiders increased by almost nine times in 30 years from 1867 to 1897 as these rules led to their partial integration with the Ho community members.
• The Ho community members were now designated as ryots (tenants) of the state. They were issued the pattas of land. This led to fostering a sense of individual property and ownership, which was absent till now.

System continues:

• These rules continue to be in operation at present times.
• In Moro Ho vs. State of Bihar in 2000, the Patna High court has held that these rules are customary in nature, not the formal law. The Bench allowed these rules to continue since no alternative existed.
• Overtime these laws have become outdate and clashed with the realities of modern democratic nation state.
• There have been complaints by non-tribal that Ho tribe Munda denying the livelihoods beyond traditional occupations to the livestock-rearing Gope community members.
• There have been instances where villagers have been denied access to official documents due to the prolonged absence of Mundas from the village.
• These instances have forced DC to issue nine-point directive to bring transparency to the Manki-Munda system mentioned in Wilkinson’s rules. This was interpreted as interference, triggering protests.

Challenges with the Manki-Munda system:

• There are demands, especially from young members of Ho community, to end the hereditary rule of Mundas and give more liberty to non tribal tenants.
• Many Mundas who inherit the role are not formally educated, making it difficult for them to adapt to modern document-based administrative system. It also burdens the district administration as these villagers often raise these issues before it.

Way Forward:

The government is entrusted with the constitutional responsibility to protect the alternative dispute resolutions of tribal communities such as the Manki-Munda system. This protects the rights of these communities over their livelihoods, and their customs, rituals. While this system must be preserved, it must be reformed to align it with modern democratic principles. This will also enhance the trust of Mundas among non-tribal people and help in the assimilation of Ho community to modern lifestyles.