Universal Coaching Centre -

Enter your keyword

8053+ OFFICERS SERVING THE NATION UNIVERSAL COACHING CENTRE Let's join hands together in bringing Your Name in Elite officers list. JOIN US 25 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE MEET NEW FRIENDS AND STUDY WITH EXPERTS JOIN US Nothing is better than having friends study together. Each student can learn from others through by teamwork building and playing interesting games. Following instruction of experts, you and friends will gain best scores.

ULP Click here! Click here! Classroom Programme NRA-CET Test Series
Click here ! Org code: XSHWV

post

Presidential Reference Challenged by Two Southern States

Why in News?

Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the Presidential Reference in the Supreme Court, arguing it seeks a review of an already settled judgment regarding the powers of Governors under Articles 200 and 201, calling the reference misleading and unconstitutional. This challenge raises significant constitutional questions and has implications for federal principles in India.

States Oppose Presidential Reference:

● Tamil Nadu and Kerala, representing state governments, urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference, calling it an “appeal in disguise” and a potential misuse of constitutional powers.

● The States said the President cannot refer settled questions of law under Article 143, emphasizing the importance of respecting judicial precedents.

● Kerala argued that the Supreme Court cannot sit in appeal of its own judgments, highlighting the principle of judicial finality.

● They claimed the Centre’s reference was an attempt to bypass proper legal procedures, like review or curative petitions, which are established methods for challenging Supreme Court judgments.

● The reference was termed “misleading” and based on suppressed facts, raising concerns about the proper use of constitutional authority.

Established Finality and Legal Process Ignored

● The Tamil Nadu Governor judgment, which is now subject to this constitutional interpretation debate, was authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala as part of a five-judge bench.

● Kerala argued that since no review petition or other form of appellate jurisdiction was exercised, the judgment has attained finality in accordance with constitutional law.

● The Union Government did not challenge the verdict through valid means such as a writ petition or other procedural law mechanisms.

● Therefore, the Presidential Reference route is legally untenable and should not be used to reopen settled matters, as it could undermine the principle of res integra in constitutional issues.

● The States emphasized that judicial pronouncements must be respected to uphold constitutional principles and the constitutional oath taken by all parties involved.

About Article 143 and Judicial Precedent:
● Article 143 empowers the President to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on legal questions.
● However, this can only be invoked if the question has not already been decided by the Court, respecting the principle of judicial adjudication.
● As per Article 141, Supreme Court rulings are binding on all courts and authorities, serving as authoritative pronouncements on legal matters.
● The April 8 Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment already settled the issue, making it part of settled constitutional law.
● Article 144 mandates that the President and executive must act in aid of the Supreme Court, reinforcing the constitutional mandate of respecting judicial decisions.