Here to give an opinion, not overrule Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment: Presidential Reference Bench

The five judges on a Bench hearing a Presidential Reference said on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) they have no intention to “pronounce a judgment on the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment” or overrule it.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said its ambit was limited to give an “opinion” on the questions raised by the President in a Reference issued under Article 143 of the Constitution. The President has primarily questioned the court’s power to impose timelines on her and the Governors, and grant deemed assent to Bills if they did not act within the deadline.

Supreme Court hearing on Presidential Reference updates on August 19, 2025

The Reference was issued merely a month after the Supreme Court, in a case filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against its Governor. set three-month timelines for the President and the Governors to clear State Bills.

“We will only be expressing our view on the questions of law raised in the Reference, and not pronounce a judgment in the Tamil Nadu case,” Chief Justice Gavai addressed the Centre and Attorney General R. Venkataramani, who are supporting the Reference.

Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, and senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and advocate C.K. Sasi, for Kerala, raised preliminary objections to the very maintainability of the Presidential Reference, arguing that the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment was binding on all under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The two States submitted that an “opinion” given by a Presidential Reference Bench in its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 cannot set aside the “binding” judgment in the Tamil Nadu case. They argued that the Reference cannot be a substitute for a review or a curative petition against the Tamil Nadu judgment.

“Presidential References like this could make serious inroads into judicial independence. It could be used as an indirect endeavour to overturn Supreme Court judgments without going through constitutional proceedings like the review and curative,” Mr. Singhvi contended.

Mr. Venugopal submitted that questions raised in the Reference have been comprehensively answered in the April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu case.

Justice Surya Kant assured the two States that the five-judge Bench was sitting in its advisory jurisdiction, and not as an Appellate Bench over a Supreme Court judgment. “We can give an opinion about a judgment, but we cannot overrule it,” Justice Kant made a fine point. eom