Presidential Reference Cannot Undermine Prior SC Rulings, States Tell Apex Court
Tamil Nadu and Kerala urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on timelines for the President and Governors to clear State Bills. Both states argued that the reference is "misleading" and an "appeal in disguise" against the Court's prior authoritative pronouncements, particularly the Tamil Nadu Governor case. They contended that the Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction through such a reference. Citing Article 143, the states asserted that the President can refer a question of law only if the Supreme Court has not already decided it, which is not the case here as powers under Articles 200 and 201 have been subject to multiple judgments.
Key Points
- Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenged a Presidential Reference on the grounds that it seeks to revisit settled legal questions.
- The states argued that the Supreme Court cannot review its own judgments through a Presidential Reference.
- They cited Article 143, stating that the President can only refer questions of law not yet decided by the apex court.
- The powers of Governors and the President regarding State Bills (Articles 200 and 201) have already been addressed in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Exam Facts
- The Presidential Reference concerns the powers of the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
- Article 143 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction.
- The 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case was cited as a judicial precedent.
- The Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment by Justice J.B. Pardiwala was delivered on April 8.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.