Can Presidential Reference change a judgment?, Pg 8.

Key Highlights:

• Origin: The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8, 2024 judgment, which ruled that Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in acting on Tamil Nadu’s Bills was “unconstitutional”, and imposed judicially enforceable timelines for assent.
• President Droupadi Murmu has referred 14 questions to the SC seeking constitutional clarity on the limits of judicial direction over executive discretion.
• Bench Composition: A Constitution Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai will begin hearings mid-August 2025.

Legal Background and Issues:

• Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 143(1)): 
  • Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
  • The SC has discretion to answer or decline the reference but must record reasons if declining.
• Binding Nature: 
  • Advisory opinions are not binding under Article 141, but carry significant persuasive value.
  • In practice, courts and governments often follow such opinions for constitutional clarity.
• Limits on Use of Article 143:
  • Cannot be used to overturn or review judgments rendered under adjudicatory jurisdiction (as in the April 8 ruling).
  • However, the SC may clarify or elaborate on constitutional principles without reversing prior rulings.

Broader Implications:

• Federalism: Clarifies the balance of power between elected State legislatures and unelected constitutional heads.
• Judicial Restraint vs Activism: Raises concerns over judicial encroachment on executive discretion.
• Governance Efficiency: Timely assent to Bills is crucial for legislative productivity and State autonomy.

Concepts Involved:

• Article 143(1): Presidential Reference for advisory opinion by the SC.
• Article 200 & 201: Pertains to Governor’s powers to grant assent, withhold, or reserve State Bills for President.
• Article 141: Law declared by the SC is binding on all courts in India.