In News:

In a landmark judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., the Supreme Court of India decisively addressed the issue of Governors withholding assent to state bills without justification or within a reasonable time.

The case arose after the Tamil Nadu Governor delayed or reserved for the President’s consideration 10 re-enacted Bills passed by the State Assembly, prompting the State Government to move the Court. The Supreme Court declared such delays unconstitutional and laid down a time-bound framework for gubernatorial assent, thereby reinforcing the federal fabric and legislative autonomy of states.

Constitutional Framework and Issues

Under Article 200, when a Bill is presented to the Governor after being passed by the State Legislature, the Governor has four options: grant assent, withhold assent, return the Bill (except money Bills), or reserve it for the President. However, the proviso to Article 200 mandates that once a Bill is re-passed by the Legislature, the Governor “shall not withhold assent.” Article 163 requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (CoM), except in limited discretionary matters.

The crux of the problem lies in the absence of any timeline in Article 200, enabling some Governors to indefinitely delay or withhold assent—often termed a “pocket veto.” Such delays, especially in opposition-ruled states, have sparked accusations of political misuse and erosion of democratic norms. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, and Telangana have faced similar issues, resulting in constitutional gridlock and litigation.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

In its verdict, the Supreme Court declared that:

• The Governor's delay in granting assent or reserving re-passed Bills is illegal and violates constitutional provisions.
• The ten re-enacted Bills in Tamil Nadu are deemed to have received assent under Article 142, which empowers the Court to ensure "complete justice."
• The Governor has no discretion to reserve or withhold assent once a Bill is re-passed by the Assembly unless its content has materially changed.
• Indefinite inaction by the Governor amounts to a subversion of democracy and disrespect to the will of the people.

Time-bound Guidelines Laid Down

For the first time, the Court laid down clear timelines:

• 1 month to act (assent/reserve) on the aid and advice of CoM.
• 3 months to return a Bill if withholding assent without CoM's advice.
• 1 month to assent to a Bill re-passed by the legislature.
• 3 months maximum to reserve a Bill for the President, with justification.

Failure to comply renders the Governor’s inaction subject to judicial review, introducing a mechanism of constitutional accountability.

Significance for Federalism and Governance

The judgment is a milestone in reaffirming cooperative federalism, ending the misuse of gubernatorial discretion to obstruct state legislation. It upholds the supremacy of the elected legislature and enforces the constitutional principle that Governors are not political actors but facilitators of governance. It also ensures that democratic processes cannot be sabotaged by unelected constitutional functionaries.

Conclusion

By reinforcing time-bound gubernatorial actions and curbing arbitrary delays, the Supreme Court has safeguarded India’s constitutional architecture. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had warned, the effectiveness of the Constitution depends on its implementers. This verdict echoes that caution, ensuring that constitutional morality prevails over partisan politics.

Introduction

Minilateralism refers to the growing trend of smaller, more focused international groupings of countries that cooperate on specific issues or regional challenges. It contrasts with the traditional multilateral frameworks, which are often large, slow-moving, and bogged down by lengthy debates and consensus-building. Today, minilateral platforms are increasingly driving global decision-making and shaping the future of international relations.

Rise of Minilateralism

Failure of Multilateralism

• Multilateralism's Decline: Traditional multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN) are increasingly seen as ineffective due to their bureaucratic nature and the challenges in building consensus among a large number of diverse nations.
• Global Challenges: Emerging global issues, such as climate change, terrorism, and cybersecurity, require faster and more effective responses. The inability of multilateral platforms to address these challenges efficiently has led to a preference for smaller, more agile groupings.

Emergence of New Powers

• Multipolar World: The rise of new powers such as China, India, and Brazil has contributed to the formation of minilateral groupings. These rising powers desire a greater role in global governance but may not yet have the ability or desire to reshape the international order through large, cumbersome institutions.
• Minilateralism as "Multipolarity Lite": Minilateralism allows these countries to assert themselves as regional or global poles without the need for the complexities of full-scale multilateralism.

India's Role in Minilateralism

Strategic Positioning

• Geopolitical Context: India’s strategic location in South Asia, its status as part of the Global South, and its proximity to a rising China have all influenced its approach to minilateralism. India’s multi-aligned approach reflects its desire for flexibility in navigating the complex and shifting global geopolitical landscape.
• Diverse Partnerships: India is a key player in various minilateral arrangements, balancing its relationships with both traditional Western powers and rising Eastern nations, often serving as a bridge between competing geopolitical interests.

Minilateralism as a Solution

• Diversification Over Alignment: India's preference for minilateralism stems from the desire to avoid over-reliance on any single bloc or country. By engaging in multiple minilateral platforms, India seeks to hedge its interests, balancing its strategic objectives between competing global forces.

The Role of Minilateral Forums

Decision-making and Action

• Faster Action: Minilateral groupings facilitate quicker decision-making by bringing together like-minded countries to focus on specific issues, allowing for more decisive action than traditional multilateral bodies.
• Conflict Resolution: While minilateral platforms may not directly resolve conflicts, they offer indirect pathways for addressing geopolitical tensions by fostering dialogue and cooperation among countries with divergent interests.

Examples of Minilateral Groupings

• BRICS: The grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa is an example of a minilateral arrangement where emerging powers cooperate on shared economic and political interests.
• Quad: The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (comprising the United States, India, Japan, and Australia) is a prominent example of minilateralism focused on regional security, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
• Other Regional Groupings: Minilateralism also manifests in regional arrangements such as the ASEAN-led East Asia Summit or the India-Japan-Australia trilateral forum, each addressing specific regional and global concerns.

Conclusion

Shaping the Future of Global Order

Minilateralism is reshaping the international order by fostering closer, more flexible cooperation between countries on a wide range of issues. As multilateralism faces growing challenges, smaller, more focused partnerships offer a faster and more efficient means of addressing global problems. India's pivotal role in these groupings reflects its desire to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape while maintaining strategic autonomy. The rise of minilateralism marks a significant shift in global governance, one that could define the future of international relations.