SC counters States’ ‘appeal in disguise’ argument, Pg1

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court addressed concerns from non-BJP ruled states regarding the 2025 Presidential Reference.
• The court stated that an advisory opinion could potentially overrule a previous judgment.
• Tamil Nadu argued the Reference was a disguised appeal against the April 8 judgment on Governor Bill timelines.
• The Reference Bench cited a 1978 opinion by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud supporting the overruling of judgments.

Detailed Insights:

• The divergence in opinion raises the possibility of the government using Presidential References to challenge apex court judgments instead of filing review petitions.
• Article 143 of the Constitution deals with the power of the President to consult the Supreme Court.
• Article 141 mandates that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.
• Article 144 states that all authorities must aid the Supreme Court, reinforcing the binding nature of its judgments.
• The Union government's decision to pursue a Presidential Reference instead of a review petition suggests a strategic approach to potentially overturn the April 8 judgment.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Presidential Reference: Consultation by the President with the Supreme Court on a question of law or fact.
• Advisory Opinion: A non-binding opinion issued by a court on a legal question submitted by the executive or legislative branch.
• Article 143: Constitutional provision outlining the President's power to consult the Supreme Court.