The Hindu: Published on 24th July 2025:
Why in News?
On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court (SC) issued notices to the Union Government and States in response to a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution.
The Reference stems from President Droupadi Murmu’s request for the SC’s advisory opinion on whether Presidents and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures.
This is significant because it follows the April 8 SC ruling, which imposed time-bound obligations on Governors and the President in dealing with Bills.
Background:
The case arose from Tamil Nadu's petition challenging Governor R.N. Ravi's delay in granting assent to 10 State Bills.
On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that such delay was unconstitutional and imposed judicially enforceable timelines for both Governors and the President.
The Presidential Reference questions whether courts can prescribe deadlines for constitutional authorities.
Constitutional Provision: Article 143:
Article 143(1) allows the President to seek the SC’s advisory opinion on any question of law or fact of public importance.
The SC may choose to answer — it is not obligatory.
The SC cannot go beyond the scope of questions referred to it.
Can Presidential Reference Change a Judgment?:
Short Answer: No. A Presidential Reference cannot overturn or review a settled Supreme Court judgment made in its adjudicatory jurisdiction (i.e., regular court case).
The April 8 decision is binding under Article 141, while an advisory opinion under Article 143 is not binding.
Legal Reasoning:
In Cauvery Water Tribunal Case, SC held that Article 143 cannot be used to reopen settled legal questions.
However, in In re: Natural Resources Allocation (2012), the court held that it can clarify or reformulate a legal view without disturbing the earlier judgment's ratio.
Precedents:
R.K. Garg (1981): SC advisory treated as persuasive authority, sometimes even cited as precedent.
1998 Collegium Case Reference: SC modified some elements of its earlier judgment without overturning it.
Are Advisory Opinions Binding?:
No. Advisory opinions are not binding under Article 143.
They have high persuasive value, particularly for constitutional interpretation.
However, the April 8 judgment is binding as it was rendered under Article 141 in an adjudicatory context.
Why Is This Reference Significant?
Raises deep constitutional questions about the checks on discretionary power of Governors and the President.
Tests the limits of judicial intervention in executive functioning.
May have long-term consequences for legislative-executive relations at the State level.
Implications:
The SC’s eventual opinion could refine or add nuance to the April 8 ruling, but not nullify it.
If SC reiterates the April 8 stance, it strengthens the argument for judicial timelines on constitutional functionaries.
A divergent opinion may open the door to legislative or political pushback against judicial oversight.
What Happens Next?
A Constitution Bench will hear the case in detail around mid-August.
The court's opinion, while not binding, will shape future constitutional practices and possibly trigger legislative changes.
Conclusion:
- A Presidential Reference cannot change a judgment.
- But it can prompt clarification or reinterpretation of constitutional principles.
- The Supreme Court’s discretion in responding to such References is broad but bounded.
- This case underscores the fragile balance between judicial authority and executive discretion in India’s constitutional framework.
