|
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to prioritize hearing arguments from the states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala regarding the maintainability of a Presidential Reference. This reference, initiated by the President of India, questions the Court's authority to establish timelines for the President and State Governors in processing State Bills awaiting approval. The decision marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing debate surrounding the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, particularly concerning the role of Governors in the legislative process. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, has set August 19 as the date for the initial hearing, during which the two states will be allotted one hour each to present their arguments against the maintainability of the Reference. This approach underscores the Court's recognition of the states' concerns and its commitment to thoroughly examine the jurisdictional aspects before delving into the substantive questions raised by the President. The involvement of prominent legal figures, including senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, A.M. Singhvi, and P. Wilson, representing the states, further highlights the significance of this legal battle. Their arguments are expected to center on the premise that the Presidential Reference constitutes an indirect appeal against previous Supreme Court judgments, thus exceeding the scope of the Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Attorney General of India, R. Venkataramani, has expressed his willingness to allow the states to present their case fully before the Union Government commences its submissions in support of the Presidential Reference. This cooperative stance reflects a commitment to ensuring a fair and balanced hearing, allowing all parties to articulate their positions comprehensively. The Court has also directed all parties to submit their written arguments by August 12, streamlining the process and ensuring that the judges have ample time to review the relevant legal documents and precedents. The schedule set by the Court allocates specific dates for the Union Government to present its arguments, followed by response dates for the opposing parties, culminating in a rebuttal by the Union Government. This structured timeline reflects the Court's determination to expedite the proceedings while maintaining a rigorous and comprehensive examination of the issues at hand. Chief Justice Gavai has emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the established timelines, indicating the Court's intention to manage the case efficiently and prevent undue delays. The Court has also stipulated that only Mr. Venugopal will be permitted to appear online, acknowledging his exceptional status as a distinguished legal expert. This decision, supported by Mr. Mehta, underscores the Court's recognition of individual expertise and its commitment to optimizing the hearing process.
The core argument advanced by Tamil Nadu and Kerala is that the Presidential Reference is essentially an 'appeal in disguise,' challenging the validity of prior Supreme Court decisions. Kerala, in particular, has argued that the President's power to refer questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 is limited to matters that have not already been definitively decided by the Court. The state has cited precedents, including the 1993 Reference in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, to support its contention that the Supreme Court's pronouncements on the powers of Governors and the President under Articles 200 and 201 are binding and preclude the need for a Presidential Reference. Kerala further argues that the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, has already addressed the questions raised in the Presidential Reference, rendering the latter unnecessary. The state contends that if the government seeks to challenge the April 8 judgment, it should pursue a review or curative petition within the Supreme Court, rather than resorting to a Presidential Reference. This argument highlights the fundamental principle of judicial finality and the importance of respecting the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the relationship between the executive and judicial branches and the scope of the President's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution. It will also further define the parameters of gubernatorial powers within the Indian federal structure, especially in the context of State Bills awaiting presidential or gubernatorial assent.