NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said answering the Presidential reference on fixing timelines for the President and the Governor to clear the Bills passed by the state legislatures would not affect the judgment in the case of Tamil Nadu.
“We are not deciding whether the Tamil Nadu judgment is correct or not. We are not deciding that issue. We are only answering the reference made by the President,” a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai said.
Starting its hearing on reference made on May 13, 2025, the bench sought to brush aside the reservations expressed by Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
The court asked as to what was wrong if the President herself sought views through a Presidential reference.
The counsel representing the opposition-ruled Tamil Nadu and Kerala governments questioned the very maintainability of the Presidential reference. The bench said it is only acting under the advisory jurisdiction.
The bench said the court will only be expressing its view on the law and would not pronounce a judgment on the Tamil Nadu case. The bench also comprised Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, in a judgment on April 8, 2025 declared that the Tamil Nadu Governor’s decision to withhold assent to 10 bills was "illegal" and "arbitrary" and fixed a three-month timeline for the President to clear the bills.
President Droupadi Murmu, subsequently, exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President while dealing with the Bills passed by State Assemblies.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the Tamil Nadu government, contended that the nature of the present case is such that the bench may disturb the decision in the Tamil Nadu case.
The court, however, said the bench will only express its view on the law and would not pronounce a judgment on the Tamil Nadu matter. It also said the bench would only give an opinion, and it would not affect the judgment.
Calling the reference an intra-court appeal, Singhvi claimed that the President's advisory jurisdiction cannot substitute for a review plea. He contended that the Constitution bench was being asked to change the decision, merits and contents in the Tamil Nadu case.
“How is it going to change the decision, already rendered by a division bench? You are proceeding as if the judgment will be automatically annulled. That is not right. Why are you presuming that," the bench asked Singhvi, who said they are testing maintainability.
Senior advocate K K Venugopal, representing the Kerala government, said the apex court had already interpreted similar questions regarding Article 200 of the Constitution, which requires Governors to act “as soon as possible” on state bills, in cases concerning Punjab, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu.
Venugopal contended that for the first time, in the Tamil Nadu case, a deadline was fixed for the assent of Bills passed by the assembly, and emphasized that once judgments cover the field, a fresh presidential reference cannot be entertained.
Venugopal insisted that the Centre should have sought a formal review instead of invoking Article 143 to seek a reference by the President.
The bench, however, asked him, “Show us one judgment where in a division bench, a reference is not tenable. We are not deciding the issue whether Tamil Nadu is correct or not".
The court also said even if the reference were to be entertained, it remained open to it to decide whether all 14 questions needed to be answered or whether some could be left untouched.
Attorney General R Venkataramani opposed the submissions of both the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments. Senior advocates Harish Salve and Maninder Singh, defending the reference, submitted the court can provide guidance even though there was a judicial precedent available on the subject.
In a written submission, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta earlier contended that imposing fixed timelines on Governors and the President to act on bills passed by a state assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution, and lead to "constitutional disorder".
The DMK government earlier claimed the Centre tried to unsettle the settled principle laid down in the April 8, 2025 judgment in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Governor of Tamil Nadu.
"Entertaining the instant reference would erode the finality of Article 141, undermine judicial independence, and distort the separation of powers. This court should thus decline to answer the reference and return it as constitutionally impermissible," it said.
In a brief note, the state said the presidential reference of May 13, 2025 raised questions concerning the scope of gubernatorial powers under Article 200 and Presidential powers under Article 201.
"However, these questions have already been comprehensively settled by the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Governor of Tamil Nadu, (2025), which authoritatively clarified the constitutional duties of Governors with respect to assent," it said.
It maintained the questions of the reference were already covered by the said judgement as well as that of State of Punjab Vs Principal Secretary to the Governor (2024) and State of Telangana Vs Governor (2023).
It also stated that Article 143 of the Constitution cannot be used to reopen or nullify binding judgments.
In Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re (1993), this court held that advisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction, it pointed out.
Kerala maintained that a reference under Article 143 cannot result in the Supreme Court overruling the findings of law and fact delivered in the earlier judgments, but it can only clarify aspects where there is a doubt. The instant reference is thus a serious misuse of the power under Article 143 of the Constitution, it said.
It also said the first 11 out of the 14 queries raised in the reference are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs the Governor of Tamil Nadu, delivered on April 08, 2025, merely one month before the reference was made on May 13, 2025.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
