Subheading:
The President’s Article 143(1) Reference on gubernatorial powers sparks constitutional debate—can settled SC rulings be reopened through this route?
The Unprecedented Reference That Has Sparked Legal Debate
In an unprecedented move, the President of India has invoked Article 143(1) of the Constitution to refer 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. These relate primarily to the powers of the Governors and the President concerning the assent to Bills passed by state legislatures.
This extraordinary action raises a critical constitutional question: Can a Supreme Court judgment be altered through a Presidential Reference under Article 143?
What Article 143(1) Actually Says
Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on any “question of law or fact” that is “of such a nature and of such public importance” that it is expedient to obtain the Court’s opinion.
Importantly, this advisory jurisdiction of the Court is not binding. The Court’s response is purely consultative and does not override or modify its existing binding precedents established through adversarial litigation.
You can read more on the basics of the Indian Constitution’s structure and judicial powers in The Legal Observer’s Insight section.
Can Past Judgments Be Revisited in Article 143?
The Reference notably comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu, which had already addressed the issue of gubernatorial discretion in assenting to bills. The move has prompted legal experts to question the constitutional permissibility of using Article 143 to “reopen” decided questions.
Expert View:
“Article 143 is advisory, not appellate,” said a retired Supreme Court judge in a recent interview. “It cannot undo or dilute the binding precedent unless a larger bench is constituted in an actual adversarial case.”
The Scope—and Limits—of Advisory Jurisdiction
Article 143 has been sparingly used in India’s legal history. Notable instances include:
- Berubari Union case (1960) – concerning the ceding of Indian territory to Pakistan.
- Ayodhya land dispute (1993) – later returned unanswered by the Court.
- NJAC judgment fallout (2015) – where constitutional interpretation was clarified.
None of these resulted in direct alteration of prior Supreme Court decisions. They either offered legal clarity or reiterated established positions.
For related constitutional analysis, visit our Debate section.
Why This Matters: Separation of Powers at Risk?
Legal scholars argue that a Presidential Reference to revisit settled law could blur the separation of powers. It may unintentionally set a precedent where political arms of the state nudge the judiciary to reconsider its verdicts without fresh litigation.
This development also raises concerns about the institutional independence of the judiciary and the finality of its judgments, both of which are cornerstones of constitutional democracy.
Looking Ahead: What Could Happen?
The Supreme Court can choose to return the Reference unanswered, provide an opinion reaffirming its past rulings, or recommend a future adversarial case to be heard by a larger bench. Regardless of the outcome, this case could reshape the future use of Article 143.
Stay tuned to our National News section for real-time updates on how the Court responds to this pivotal Reference.
📺 Also watch our latest breakdown on this topic on our official YouTube channel.
Internal Links Used:
- https://thelegalobserver.com/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/views/insight/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/views/debate/
- https://thelegalobserver.com/category/news/national/
External Link:
YouTube – The Legal Observer
