The clash between the executive and the judiciary, with a divided legislature, has been a familiar scenario in India. However, the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India, holding that the President is bound to accord or withhold assent to state legislations within an outer limit of three months, relying on two office memorandums issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated February 4, 2016, and the strong rebuttal by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar critiquing the judiciary for its expansive interpretation of Article 142 of the Constitution, likening it to a ‘nuclear missile’ against democratic forces, offers a situation extraordinaire and warrants serious constitutional introspection.

While the legislative will, be it of Parliament or a state legislature, indeed deserves the highest regard, one needs to be careful of the scenarios where any pronouncement in the name of the will of the people may seem to be the case of the appropriation of peoples’ will as suggested by the Vice President of India. In fact, the Supreme Court, in a 1996 judgment, cautioned with regard to the exercise of powers under Article 142, observing that “the very fact that this power is conferred only upon this Court, and on no one else, is itself an assurance that it will be used with due restraint and circumspection".

Hence, the implications of the Hon’ble Court’s directive merit sober reflection in light of the doctrine of separation of powers and the unique constitutional position of the President of India.

The Constitution, significantly, does not prescribe any timeline within which such assent must be granted or withheld. The........

© News18