Can the Central Government Pass an Ordinance to Override the Supreme Court's Sabarimala Judgment?

The ongoing debate over the Sabarimala pilot project continues to draw attention to the complex interplay between the central government, the judiciary, and religious customs in India. One significant point of contention is whether the central government can pass an ordinance to override the Supreme Court's judgment in the Sabarimala case. This article delves into the legal and constitutional considerations surrounding this issue.

Constitutional Framework and Legislation

It is indeed possible for the central government to bring a bill amending the Constitution to create a separate 'Ayyappa Sect' with its own rules. However, the process for enacting such a bill is lengthy and requires the approval of both houses of Parliament within six months. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have indicated their interest in communalizing this issue to gain political benefits, but the complexity of legislative processes must be considered.

In practice, the central government can promulgate an ordinance, which is a temporary legislative measure used when both houses of Parliament are not in session. However, the validity of such an ordinance under the Constitution is a separate matter entirely. The Supreme Court (SC) is the custodian of the Constitution, and no ordinance or law can override the court's verdict.

Role of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the ultimate guarantor of the Constitution's supremacy, and no ordinance or law can be above its verdicts. The Constitution clearly stipulates that the SC has the power to examine any legislation for its constitutionality. Therefore, if the central government were to promulgate an ordinance attempting to override the Sabarimala judgment, the SC would have to examine it. If found to contravene fundamental rights such as equality, the SC would likely strike down the ordinance.

Under Article 123 of the Constitution, the President can promulgate an ordinance when either house of Parliament is not in session. However, this power is subject to strict limitations. An ordinance must be laid in both houses of Parliament within six weeks of Parliament convening, and it automatically lapses if Parliament disapproves. Hence, the maximum period for an ordinance to operate without parliamentary approval is six months.

Constitutional Amendments and Basic Structure Doctrine

For the central government to override the Sabarimala judgment in a more permanent fashion, it could attempt to pass a constitutional amendment. However, this process is fraught with complexities. While the central government has the authority to bring a constitutional amendment bill, the SC can still strike down any amendment that violates the basic structure of the Constitution, a principle established in the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.

The concept of the basic structure has not been fully defined by the SC. However, it generally includes principles like secularism, democracy, and federalism. Any amendment that seeks to alter these fundamental tenets would be vulnerable to judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion

While the central government can pass an ordinance in certain exceptional circumstances, such an ordinance's validity under the Constitution remains contingent on Supreme Court scrutiny. Any effort to override the Sabarimala judgment would need to go through a rigorous constitutional amendment process, which the SC could still invalidate if it violates the basic structure. Therefore, any move by the central government in this direction must be approached with caution and careful consideration of the constitutional implications.

Keywords: Sabarimala, Constitution, Ordinance, Supreme Court, Basic Structure