Presidential reference: SC rejects objections of opposition-ruled states

The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to accept the preliminary objections raised by oppositionruled states like Tamil Nadu West Bengal and Kerala to maintainability of Presidential Reference saying the issues raised in it pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of the constitutional machineryIn its unanimous verdict a fivejudge bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said the unique nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this court lies in its institutional character and the power to interpret the Constitution nay the duty to interpret it for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents is exclusively vested with the judiciaryThe questions referred by the President pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of our constitutional machinery that ensures the continuation of our republican democracy and governance by elected representativesThat they are constitutionally significant cannot by any measure be overstated This Court is empowered and entrusted under Article 143 with the duty to answer such questions in service of the Constitution and the people that have so adopted it Judicial propriety and institutional integrity requires that this Court answer the questions referred to it in the present proceedings the top court saidThe bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant Vikram Nath P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar rejected the plea of oppositionruled states like Tamil Nadu West Bengal Kerala Himachal Pradesh Karnataka Telangana Meghalaya and others that the Presidential Reference should be declined and returned unanswered in entirety as the issues raised in it were answered threadbare in April 8 verdict of the apex courtThe unique nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this Court lies in its institutional character The power to interpret the Constitution nay the duty to interpret it for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents is exclusively vested with the judiciaryThis Court is endowed with the institutional capacity and the constitutional duty to answer references that will ensure that the Constitution is nurtured and worked for the benefit of the people it saidThe bench said the exercise of the courts advisory function is a constitutional dialogue between the executive and the judiciary and it cannot shirk away from its responsibility to iron out constitutional creases to authoritatively clarify the roles of constitutional institutions when doubts as to their roles and powers are raisedIt added that previously there have been 15 presidential references under Article 1431 of the Constitution and each reference was made in a specific factual matrix that had arisen and necessitated the advice of the Supreme CourtThe allegation that the nondisclosure of the judgment in itself reflects mala fides is certainly a leap in logic and one which does not behove this Court to entertain against the highest constitutional functionary ie the President Given the constitutional significance of the questions so referred we deem it appropriate to reject the preliminary objection made in this regard the top court saidIt pointed out that except for the Presidential Reference of 1993 which was returned unanswered on the ground that it did not serve any constitutional purpose all references were duly answered in part or in full by the courtAccepting the submissions of the Centre and NDAruled states like Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Rajasthan Uttar Pradesh Odisha and others for answering the Presidential Reference the bench said the nature of this reference therefore places a duty on this court to answer some if not all the questions so referredThis is therefore a functional reference which is fundamentally of a different nature as compared to the earlier references under Article 143 as it strikes at the root of the continuation of our republican and democratic way and the Constitutions federal character The nature of this reference therefore places a duty on this Court to answer some if not all the questions so referred it saidThe top court said that none of the earlier 15 presidential references were related to constitutional mechanics the day to day functioning of constitutional functionaries and the interplay between various functionaries the state legislature governor and the president with regards to enactment of legislationIt is apparent that the issues raised in the present reference have arisen in the aftermath of the decision rendered by a 2judge bench of this court in the State of Tamil Nadu on April 8 2025 it said adding that a state of doubt or confusion has arisen in relation to various issues concluded by this court in the said verdictThe top court said the perusal of April 8 verdict would reveal that at least some of the conclusions are in variance with earlier decisions although the decision in State of Tamil Nadu seeks to reconcile this departure from earlier precedentsIn this context this Court finds that an authoritative opinion of this Court is mandated since the law on the functions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 cannot be left in a state of confusion as it would impede smooth functioning of the Constitution it saidThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever