UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 24 July 2025

Presidential Reference Latest News

• Recently, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether courts can compel the President and Governors to act within specified timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. 
• A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will begin detailed hearings by mid-August.

Background of the Case: SC’s April Verdict Under Scrutiny

• The Reference was made under Article 143 of the Constitution after President Droupadi Murmu submitted 14 questions following the Court’s April 2025 judgment. 
• That ruling, delivered in a case brought by the Tamil Nadu government, held that Governor R.N. Ravi’s delay in assenting to ten re-passed State Bills was illegal.
• In this judgment, the apex court, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on both Governors and the President.
• The current Reference seeks clarity on whether courts can direct constitutional authorities on how and when to act. 

Scope and Significance of the Supreme Court’s Advisory Jurisdiction

• Article 143(1) of the Indian Constitution allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal or factual matters of significant public importance, even if no case is pending in court. 
• This advisory power, inspired by the Government of India Act, 1935, has been used at least 14 times since Independence. 
• The Court’s role in such cases is limited strictly to the questions raised in the Presidential Reference and cannot go beyond them. 
• Although debated in the Constituent Assembly over concerns of political misuse, the provision was retained to help resolve constitutional deadlocks. 
• To safeguard its use, Article 145(3) mandates that such References must be heard by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges.

Supreme Court’s Discretion to Decline Presidential References

• While Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion, the Court is not bound to respond in every case. 
• It holds discretionary authority to decline a Reference, as clarified in the Special Courts Bill case (1978), which interpreted the term “may” in Article 143 as conferring such discretion. 
• However, if the Court chooses not to give an opinion, it must record its reasons. 
• This was reaffirmed in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), where the Court held that References involving expert evidence or political questions may be declined. 
• Notably, in 1993, the Court refused to answer a Reference on the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute due to the ongoing civil case and concerns of constitutional impropriety. 
• Similarly, in 1982, the Court did not respond to a Reference on a proposed law related to resettlement of migrants in Jammu and Kashmir, as the law was enacted before the Court could intervene. 
• These cases underscore the Court’s cautious approach in maintaining its judicial integrity and avoiding political entanglement.

Nature of Supreme Court’s Advisory Opinions

• The binding nature of the Supreme Court’s advisory opinions remains debated. 
• Article 141 makes only the “law declared” by the Court binding on all courts, and in St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974), the Court clarified that advisory opinions are not binding precedents but hold persuasive value. 
• Still, some rulings, like R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981), treated the reasoning in advisory opinions as binding, despite earlier caveats. 
• The ambiguity continued in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1991), where the Court acknowledged advisory opinions as deserving “due weight and respect” but stopped short of declaring them binding. 
• As of now, any opinion from the current Presidential Reference will not override the binding April 2025 ruling delivered under the Court’s adjudicatory powers. 
• However, such an opinion will likely influence ongoing and future related cases, including those involving Kerala and Punjab.

Scope of Supreme Court’s Power to Modify April 2025 Verdict via Presidential Reference

• The Supreme Court has clearly stated in past rulings, such as in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case, that Article 143 cannot be used by the executive to overturn or review a settled judicial decision. 
• Once the Court has authoritatively ruled on a matter under its adjudicatory jurisdiction, there is no room for doubt that would justify a Presidential Reference. 
• The only valid method to challenge such a decision is through review or curative petitions. 
• However, the Court has also held, notably in the Natural Resources Allocation case (2012), that under Article 143(1), it may clarify or restate legal principles without disturbing the core decision or affecting parties’ rights. 
• Similarly, in 1998, a Presidential Reference led to modifications in the collegium system without invalidating the original 1993 judgment. 
• Hence, while the April 2025 ruling remains final and binding, the current Reference may be used to clarify or elaborate on its legal reasoning. 
• With 14 questions raised—some going beyond the April ruling—the Constitution Bench may provide broader constitutional interpretations without undoing the earlier judgment.

Source: TH | IE