Editorial 1: Indian diplomacy and the horses of interest, morality
Context
During her official visit to India, in April 2023, Ukraine’s First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs bluntly put across the dichotomy of India’s pursuit of its interests in global affairs — as it always must — and, at the same time, appear to follow the path of morality, as a Vishwa Guru.
Background
India’s response to Russia’s invasion on Ukraine without openly condemning Russian actions has been the problem in the eyes of the west. But, India strongly favours a return to dialogue and diplomacy so it emphasised the importance of the UN Charter – the sanctity of territorial sovereignty. The economic impact of the war on the “Global South”.
Earlier, India’s foreign policy principles were rooted in contemporary World Order’s principles. Now, the inspiration flows from the wisdom of ancient India, with the claim that its worldwide application would contribute to the welfare of the planet.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has led the charge to forcefully point to the contradictions in western prescriptions to the rest of the world in the context of the Ukraine war and the pursuit of its own interests.
Foreign policy of India
- India First Policy: With 75 years of independence, the country has a greater sense of confidence and optimism in articulating an "India First" foreign policy. India decides for itself, and its independent foreign policy cannot be subject to intimidations.
- Realistic Diplomacy: Today’s self-confident India has a new voice in the global firmament, rooted in its domestic realities and civilizational ethos, as well as firm in the pursuit of its vital interests.
- Maintaining Balance of Power to its Advantage: India has been pragmatic to the core and willing to use the extant balance of power to its advantage.
- Growing Economic Ties: Since India's economic interdependence with the rest of the world deepens, it has become more observant of markets for its products, sources of raw materials, and potential recipients of its expanding foreign aid.
- Intervention over Interference: India does not believe in interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
Ways India can be a Viswaguru
The expression Vishwaguru is a Sanskrit phrase which translates as global teacher, the Guru of World. India cannot be a Vishwa Guru until India becomes a strong global power, to which the world will look up to and is ready to listen to.
- The only way to do so appears to be to redirect its massive expenditures on various subsidies such as food, fertilizers, PM Kisan, free power, and even the PLI scheme for manufacturing toward a multifold increase in expenditure on research and innovation.
- If India wishes to play a meaningful part in changing global scenarios, India must be willing to enter the global game of thrones and play it to win. To do this, it must develop the mindset of what Hindu texts call: Vijigishu- meaning ‘one who is desirous of victory, one who wants to conquer’.
- India is a global leader in IT, a similar breakthrough in other sectors and India will acquire the world leader status it deserves as it guides the world to a prosperous future.
- Education is the most powerful tool to change mindset from an older setting to new one. It has the power to change the way people think and execute.
Conclusion
Today's India has to grow but not to become a superpower like America, China and Russia that wield power. We have to become a country which can offer answers to the problems plaguing the world today. We have to become a country which can show the world the path of peace, love and prosperity through right conduct.
Editorial 2: Pending Bills, the issue of gubernatorial inaction
Context
Tamil Nadu Governor was again in the news recently when the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution urging the President of India, among other things, to fix a timeline for assent to be given to Bills passed by the Assembly.
The issue
The Governor underlined that if the Bill passed by the legislature transgresses constitutional limits, then it is the Governor’s responsibility not to give assent. Several Bills passed by the Assembly have been pending as the Governor has not made any decision.
Legal framework:
- Article 355 of the Constitution says that it shall be the duty of the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
- The Constitution requires the Governor to act when a Bill is passed by the Assembly and present it to him as per the options given in Article 200.
- Article 200 provides options to the Governor when a Bill is presented to him after being passed by the legislature. These options are: to give assent; to withhold assent; to send it back to the Assembly to reconsider it; or to send the Bill to the President for his consideration.
- If he does not act in accordance with the Constitution and sits on the Bills indefinitely, he is creating a situation where governance of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with constitutional provisions.
- In such a situation, the government of the State has a constitutional duty to invoke Article 355 and inform the President about it, and request her to give suitable instructions to the Governor to ensure that the government is carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
- When the Constitution gives certain options to the Governor he is required to exercise one of them. Since sitting on a Bill is only acting against constitutional direction.
Limitation of Withholding the assent
- Under Article 154 of the Constitution, the Governor can exercise his executive powers only on the advice of the Council of Ministers. So, there is a view that the Governor can withhold assent to a Bill only on ministerial advice.
- But there is a confusion as to why the Council of Ministers should advise the Governor to withhold assent after the Bill has been passed by the Assembly. If the government did not want to proceed with the Bill, it could withdraw it at any stage of consideration by the Assembly.
- Similarly, if the government wanted to repeal it after it becomes an Act, it could have it repealed by the House.
- Under the Indian Constitution, the exercise of the power vested in the Governor to withhold assent may not deconfined to one situation.
- A Bill is brought before the Assembly when there is some urgency about a legislation. It may be a part of the policy of the elected government which is responsible to the people.
- Under the constitutional scheme, the Governor is only a constitutional head and has no real powers. Then such a Governor veto a legislative measure brought by the government is meaningless.
- Withholding assent means the death of that Bill. Thus, the Governor can with one stroke of the pen completely negate the will of the legislature, and thereby negate the will of the people. The Constitution cannot be assumed to be permitting the Governor to do that. Only the judiciary can set it right by way of a clear enunciation of the law.
Issue of justiciability
D.D. Basu, quoting judgments of the Supreme Court, says that it is not justiciable as evidenced by—
- Purushothaman Namboothiri case (1962): The issue that was decided in this case was that a Bill which is pending with the Governor does not lapse on the dissolution of the Assembly. But this judgement does not deal with the justiciability of the process of assent.
- Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Case (1983): Court had held that a Governor reserves a Bill for the consideration of the President in exercise of his discretion. The Court cannot go into the question of whether it was necessary for the Governor to reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President; thus, this case too does not deal with the justiciability of assent.
Way forward
The framers of the Constitution would never have imagined that Governors would sit on Bills indefinitely without exercising any of the options given in Article 200.
This is a new development which needs new solutions within the framework of the Constitution. So, it falls to the Supreme Court to fix a reasonable time frame for Governors to take a decision on a Bill passed by the Assembly in the larger interest of federalism in the country.