Presidential Reference to Supreme Court: Can Past Judgments Be Changed?
Can the Supreme Court’s Judgment Be Altered? A Presidential Reference Raises Questions
The Indian President has made a surprising move by referring 14 questions to the Supreme Court regarding the powers of Governors and the President to act on Bills. This action has sparked controversy, especially since the questions relate to an issue already settled by the Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
Article 143: Seeking the Court’s Opinion
This unprecedented step stems from Article 143 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the President advisory jurisdiction, allowing them to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on matters of law and public importance. However, the Court is not obligated to answer the Reference.
Is the Court’s Opinion Binding?
The question of whether the Supreme Court’s opinion under Article 143 is binding has been debated. While the Court has stated that its advisory opinions carry significant weight, they are not legally binding like judgments in contested cases.
There are instances where the Supreme Court clarified or modified its previous judgments while exercising Article 143 jurisdiction. The 2012 2G Spectrum Reference is a prime example where the Court clarified a dictum from an earlier judgment without impacting the core decision.
Can Past Judgments Be Reopened?
The current Presidential Reference raises concerns about the potential to revisit settled issues. The Cauvery River Dispute case established that the President cannot refer questions already decided by the Supreme Court.
The President’s latest Reference, however, appears to address the same issues as the TN Governor’s case. This raises legal and constitutional questions about whether the President can seek a review of a past judgment through this mechanism.
A Crucial Decision Looms
The Supreme Court’s response to this Reference will be closely watched. Its decision will have significant implications for the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, as well as the interpretation of Article 143.
