Presidential reference: SC rejects objections of opposition-ruled states

New Delhi, Nov 20 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to accept the preliminary objections raised by opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala to maintainability of Presidential Reference, saying the issues raised in it pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of the constitutional machinery.

In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai said the unique nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this court lies in its institutional character and the "power to interpret the Constitution, nay, the duty to interpret it for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents, is exclusively vested with the judiciary".

"The questions referred by the President pertain to the very core, and foundational modalities of our constitutional machinery, that ensures the continuation of our republican democracy, and governance by elected representatives.

"That they are constitutionally significant, cannot by any measure, be overstated. This Court is empowered, and entrusted under Article 143, with the duty to answer such questions in service of the Constitution, and the people that have so adopted it. Judicial propriety, and institutional integrity requires that this Court answer the questions referred to it in the present proceedings," the top court said.

The bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar rejected the plea of opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Meghalaya and others that the Presidential Reference should be declined and returned unanswered in entirety as the issues raised in it were answered threadbare in April 8 verdict of the apex court.

"The unique nature of the advisory jurisdiction of this Court lies in its institutional character. The power to interpret the Constitution, nay, the duty to interpret it for the benefit of the Republic and its constituents, is exclusively vested with the judiciary.

This Court is endowed with the institutional capacity and the constitutional duty to answer references that will ensure that the Constitution is nurtured and worked for the benefit of the people," it said.

The bench said the exercise of the court's advisory function is a constitutional dialogue between the executive and the judiciary and it cannot shirk away from its responsibility to iron out constitutional creases, to authoritatively clarify the roles of constitutional institutions, when doubts as to their roles and powers are raised.

It added that previously there have been 15 presidential references under Article 143(1) of the Constitution and each reference was made in a specific factual matrix that had arisen and necessitated the advice of the Supreme Court.

"The allegation that the non-disclosure of the judgment in itself, reflects mala fides, is certainly a leap in logic, and one which does not behove this Court to entertain, against the highest constitutional functionary, i.e., the President. Given the constitutional significance of the questions so referred, we deem it appropriate to reject the preliminary objection made in this regard," the top court said.

It pointed out that except for the Presidential Reference of 1993 which was returned unanswered on the ground that it did not serve any constitutional purpose, all references were duly answered – in part, or in full – by the court.

Accepting the submissions of the Centre and NDA-ruled states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha and others for answering the Presidential Reference, the bench said the nature of this reference, therefore, places a duty on this court to answer some, if not all, the questions so referred.

"This is, therefore, a 'functional reference', which is fundamentally of a different nature as compared to the earlier references under Article 143 – as it strikes at the root of the continuation of our republican and democratic way, and the Constitution's federal character. The nature of this reference, therefore, places a duty on this Court, to answer some, if not all, the questions so referred," it said.

The top court said that none of the earlier 15 presidential references were related to constitutional mechanics - the day to day functioning of constitutional functionaries and the interplay between various functionaries (the state legislature, governor, and the president), with regards to enactment of legislation.

"It is apparent that the issues raised in the present reference have arisen in the aftermath of the decision rendered by a 2-judge bench of this court in the State of Tamil Nadu on April 8, 2025," it said, adding that a state of doubt, or confusion, has arisen in relation to various issues concluded by this court in the said verdict.

The top court said the perusal of April 8 verdict would reveal that at least some of the conclusions are in variance with earlier decisions, although the decision in State of Tamil Nadu, seeks to reconcile this departure from earlier precedents.

"In this context, this Court finds that an authoritative opinion of this Court is mandated since the law on the functions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201, cannot be left in a state of confusion, as it would impede smooth functioning of the Constitution," it said. PTI MNL MNL KVK KVK