Can Presidential Reference Change a Judgment ?

Why in the News?

On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to the Union and State governments on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within time-bound limits on Bills passed by State legislatures. This comes in the wake of the April 8 Supreme Court judgment, which enforced deadlines for gubernatorial and presidential action on State Bills.The development has reignited the debate on the scope of Article 143 (Presidential Reference) and whether such a reference can override, alter, or influence prior judicial rulings.

Background

• The April 8 Ruling (2025): Came after Tamil Nadu challenged Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in granting assent to 10 Bills.
  The Supreme Court held the delay illegal and, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on the Governor and President for assenting to Bills.
• Presidential Reference:
  On July 22, President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1), seeking its advisory opinion on whether constitutional authorities can be judicially time-bound.

Feature

What is Article 143(1)?

• Grants the President the power to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact of public importance.
• The Supreme Court may give its opinion, but is not bound to do so.
• The court is required to confine its opinion strictly to the questions referred.

Nature of Presidential References:

• Non-binding: Advisory opinions do not amount to binding precedent (as per St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, 1974).
• However, such opinions carry persuasive value and have been treated as binding in some instances (R.K. Garg v. Union of India, 1981).

Key Precedents:

• In Re: Special Courts Bill (1978): Court held it can refuse a Reference.
• In Re: Ayodhya Dispute (1993): Court declined to answer the Reference, citing secularism and pending litigation.
• In Re: Natural Resources Allocation (2012): Held that Article 143 can be used to clarify or restate the law without affecting earlier rulings.

Challenge

Can Presidential Reference reverse a prior judgment?

• No. Article 143 cannot be used to review or overturn an adjudicated decision (Cauvery Water Disputes case).
• Once a judgment is delivered under Article 141, it remains binding on all courts unless reviewed or overruled by a larger Bench or through review/curative petitions.

Risk of Executive Overreach:

• Using Article 143 to indirectly question judicial decisions may blur the separation of powers.
• It could lead to politicisation of the judiciary if used to settle political disputes, as cautioned in the 1993 Ayodhya Reference.

Legal Uncertainty:

• The non-binding nature of advisory opinions creates ambiguity for future litigation.
• Over-reliance on References may undermine the finality of judicial pronouncements.

Institutional Integrity of Judiciary:

• Using advisory jurisdiction to tweak or clarify existing rulings could damage judicial credibility and independence.

Way Forward

Clarify Scope of Article 143:

• The Supreme Court should reiterate constitutional boundaries for Presidential References to prevent misuse.

Protect Judicial Finality:

• Courts must maintain a clear distinction between adjudicatory and advisory jurisdiction to preserve the sanctity of binding rulings under Article 141.

Reinforce Federalism:

• While responding to the current Reference, the court can provide clarity on the constitutional role of Governors and the President in state legislation, reinforcing cooperative federalism.

Standardise Timeline Jurisprudence:

• The court may use the Reference to elaborate on enforceable timelines, without reversing the April 8 judgment.

Public Transparency:

• All advisory opinions should be published, with detailed reasoning, so they serve as reliable interpretative resources for future governance.

Conclusion

A Presidential Reference under Article 143 cannot change or override a judicial decision rendered under Article 141. However, it can be used to clarify or refine legal positions without altering the core judgment. The current reference opens an important constitutional conversation on accountability of constitutional authorities, but the court must ensure that judicial authority is not diluted by executive queries masquerading as neutral legal doubts.

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Question: Can a Presidential Reference under Article 143 be used to override or alter a Supreme Court judgment? Discuss.

PRELIMS PRACTICE QUESTION