Supreme Court On Presidential Reference: 'Advisory Role, Not Appellate'

The Supreme Court will not set aside its April 12 order, which imposed deadlines on President Droupadi Murmu and Governors to clear bills passed by states. A Constitution bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai ruled the same on Tuesday afternoon, during the hearing of a presidential reference.

According to the Chief Justice, the court would only play an "advisory" role and would not hear an appeal in a case involving the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu and Governor RN Ravi about a batch of ten laws that had their consent withheld.

NDTV reported that the top court described Governor Ravi's actions in that respect as "illegal" and "arbitrary" in its ruling on April 12 and stated that he ought to have approved the laws when they were reintroduced.

"We will just be expressing a view of the law... and not make a decision on the Tamil Nadu case," the court said in response to preliminary objections on the maintainability of the reference.

"We are in an advisory jurisdiction... we are not in appellate. In Article 143 (which gives the President power to consult the Supreme Court on legal matters of public importance), hearing the court can render an opinion... but it cannot overrule the judgment," Justice Surya Kant said.

Senior advocates KK Venugopal (speaking for Kerala) and Abhishek Singhvi (representing Tamil Nadu) raised preliminary objections before the five-judge panel, which also includes Justices Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and A Chandurkar.

They contended that the decision of a two-judge panel in the Tamil Nadu case provided significant and direct answers to the 14 points posed in President Droupadi Murmu's reference.

They argued that the President cannot use Article 143's advisory competence to reexamine matters that have previously been determined.  Referencing other cases, including the 2G corruption scandal, Mr. Venugopal stated that a ruling written by any Supreme Court bench is binding on everyone, adding, "The court is being asked to sit on judgments already decided... this is wholly outside Article 143."

He further contended that since the President is required to act with the "aid and advice" of the Council of Ministers, a presidential reference was actually an action taken by the federal government.

According to NDTV, he claimed that this was an effort by the Indian government to overturn a ruling without submitting a review.

Similar arguments were made by his colleague, Singhvi, who said that Article 143 could not be utilised as a review or curative power replacement or as an intra-court appeal.

The court's issues about the Constitution's requirement that constitutional benches respond to constitutional inquiries were the main source of these disputes.

Venugopal was questioned by the Chief Justice on matters of "substantial importance to the Constitution," which require a Constitution bench consisting of at least five judges to determine.

He emphasised that the rulings referenced by Venugopal were rendered by five-judge benches in cases involving the governors of Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and Punjab.

Attorney General R Venkataramani then stated that, without the Tamil Nadu case, he had particularly brought up the request for a larger bench.  He and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, both contended that the court may review or change previous rulings in Article 143 instances.

Since the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn earlier rulings and it is not a part of any appellate power, Mehta referred to the previously argued barrier as a "self-imposed restriction."

Tomorrow, the court will resume its hearing.