Can a Presidential Reference alter a Supreme Court judgment?
The Supreme Court has issued notices on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on State Bills. This Reference stems from the President's 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, which deemed a Governor's inaction on Bills illegal and imposed timelines. Article 143(1) grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction, allowing it to render opinions on law or fact not connected to ongoing litigation. While advisory opinions are not binding precedents, they hold persuasive authority. The Court has previously used Presidential References to refine aspects of judgments, though it cannot be used to review or reverse settled judicial decisions.
Key Points
- A Presidential Reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on the judicial enforceability of timelines for Presidential and Gubernatorial assent to State Bills.
- Article 143(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction on matters of law or fact.
- Advisory opinions, while not legally binding precedents, carry significant persuasive authority.
- The Supreme Court has previously clarified that Presidential References cannot be used to overturn settled judicial decisions.
- However, the Court can use such references to clarify, restate, or refine existing judgments without altering their core ratio decidendi.
Exam Facts
- Article 143(1) of the Constitution (advisory jurisdiction).
- President: Droupadi Murmu.
- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
- Supreme Court's April 8 ruling (on Governor's delay).
- Cases mentioned: In Re: The Special Courts Bill (1978), Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal Reference.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.