 |
|
The State of Kerala has voiced its strong objection to the Union government's decision to advise the President of India to issue a Presidential Reference, specifically challenging the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. This case established timelines for the President and Governors to address State Bills. Kerala contends that the Centre's action is unwarranted, primarily because the Union Council of Ministers disagrees with the apex court's ruling delivered on April 8th. Kerala's stance, articulated in submissions prepared by senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and advocate C.K. Sasi, emphasizes that a mere disagreement between the Council of Ministers and a Supreme Court judgment does not constitute a valid basis for invoking Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on questions of law or fact. Kerala further asserts that the questions referred by the President are no longer res integra, meaning they are not novel or unaddressed legal issues. The state aligns itself with Tamil Nadu's position, arguing that the April 8th judgment comprehensively addressed every legal question raised in the Presidential Reference. A Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, is scheduled to hear the Reference starting August 19, 2025. Both Kerala and Tamil Nadu intend to raise preliminary objections before the five-judge Bench, challenging the maintainability of the Presidential Reference. Kerala's argument rests on the premise that the President's power to refer questions under Article 143 is contingent on the existence of a genuine question of law or fact that has arisen or is likely to arise and which is not already settled. The state contends that the questions referred to the court manifestly demonstrate that no such novel question exists, as the very questions have already been conclusively and determinatively answered by the Supreme Court. In addition to questioning the rationale for the Presidential Reference, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu have invoked Article 141 of the Constitution. This article stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court in a judgment, such as the Tamil Nadu Governor case verdict, is binding on all authorities, including the Council of Ministers. Kerala argues that an advisory opinion rendered by a Constitution Bench in response to a Presidential Reference would not supersede or override a binding judgment of the Supreme Court. This is a critical point because the Union government, instead of directly challenging the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment through a review or curative petition, is attempting to indirectly question its validity through the Presidential Reference. The state argues that the Union government's failure to file a review petition implies acceptance of the judgment. The judgment, not having been challenged in any validly constituted proceedings, has attained finality and is binding on all concerned under Article 141. Kerala insists that the judgment cannot be challenged indirectly through collateral proceedings such as the Presidential Reference. The state's argument underscores the importance of respecting judicial pronouncements and adhering to established legal procedures for challenging or modifying them. The Centre's decision to pursue a Presidential Reference, despite the Supreme Court's prior ruling, raises concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for the executive branch to undermine judicial decisions. The legal battle between Kerala and the Union government over the Presidential Reference is likely to have significant implications for the relationship between the states and the Centre, as well as the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to the powers of the President and the judiciary.
The core of Kerala's legal argument hinges on the concept of res judicata, though not in its strict procedural sense, but in a broader principle of legal finality and the respect due to judicial precedent. While res judicata typically applies to prevent relitigation of the same issues between the same parties, Kerala is extending this concept to argue that the underlying legal principles and questions addressed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case have been definitively settled by the Supreme Court and should not be revisited through the guise of a Presidential Reference. The state's reliance on Article 141 further strengthens this argument, emphasizing the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments on all authorities within the country. The implication is that the Union government, having failed to challenge the judgment directly, is attempting to circumvent the established legal framework by seeking an advisory opinion that could potentially weaken or undermine the original ruling. This approach, Kerala argues, is an improper and constitutionally questionable use of the Presidential Reference mechanism. Furthermore, Kerala's critique highlights a fundamental tension in the Indian constitutional framework – the balance between the executive's prerogative to seek legal advice and the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law. While the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, has the power to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters of public importance, this power is not unlimited. It is intended to be exercised judiciously and not as a means of circumventing or undermining established legal precedents. Kerala's argument suggests that the Centre's decision to pursue the Presidential Reference in this case is an attempt to stretch the boundaries of this power and to challenge the judiciary's authority in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of constitutional governance. The state's emphasis on the binding nature of the Supreme Court's judgment also raises important questions about the rule of law and the need for all branches of government to respect and uphold judicial decisions. If the executive branch is allowed to disregard or indirectly challenge judicial rulings through mechanisms like the Presidential Reference, it could erode public confidence in the legal system and undermine the principle of judicial independence. The upcoming hearing before the Constitution Bench is therefore crucial in clarifying the scope and limits of the Presidential Reference power and in reaffirming the importance of respecting judicial precedent. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will likely have a significant impact on the relationship between the executive and judicial branches and on the interpretation of key constitutional provisions related to the separation of powers.
The broader context of this legal dispute involves the ongoing friction between state governments, particularly those governed by opposition parties, and the Union government. The Tamil Nadu Governor case itself stemmed from concerns about delays in Governors granting assent to State Bills, leading to legislative gridlock and hindering the functioning of state governments. The Supreme Court's judgment in that case sought to address this issue by establishing timelines for Governors to act on State Bills. The Centre's decision to challenge this judgment through a Presidential Reference can be seen as part of a larger pattern of tension between the Union government and certain state governments over issues of federalism and the division of powers. States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu have often accused the Centre of encroaching on their legislative and administrative domains and of using the Governor's office to undermine their autonomy. The Presidential Reference in this case adds another layer to this complex relationship, raising questions about the extent to which the Centre can use its constitutional powers to interfere in matters that are primarily within the domain of state governments. The legal battle over the Presidential Reference is also likely to have implications for the broader debate about the role of the judiciary in resolving political disputes. In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of the Supreme Court's role in adjudicating politically sensitive matters, with some critics arguing that the court has become overly involved in areas that should be left to the political branches of government. The Presidential Reference case is another example of a politically charged issue being brought before the Supreme Court for resolution. The court's decision in this case will therefore be closely watched by both legal experts and political observers, as it could have a significant impact on the future of judicial review in India. Furthermore, the case highlights the importance of clarity and precision in the drafting of constitutional provisions. The ambiguity surrounding the scope and limits of the Presidential Reference power has contributed to the current dispute. A clearer definition of this power would help to prevent future conflicts between the executive and judicial branches and would ensure that the mechanism is used in a manner that is consistent with the principles of constitutional governance. Ultimately, the outcome of this legal battle will depend on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions and its assessment of the Centre's justification for seeking the Presidential Reference. The court's decision will likely have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the Union government and the states, the role of the judiciary in resolving political disputes, and the overall balance of power in the Indian constitutional framework.
The impending hearing of the Presidential Reference by the Constitution Bench promises to be a significant event in India's legal and political landscape. The arguments presented by Kerala and Tamil Nadu, challenging the maintainability of the Reference, will be crucial in shaping the contours of the debate. Their emphasis on the principles of res judicata, the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141, and the potential for the executive to overreach its authority in seeking advisory opinions, will undoubtedly resonate with legal scholars and constitutional experts. The Union government, on the other hand, will need to provide a compelling justification for invoking Article 143, demonstrating that the questions referred to the Supreme Court are indeed novel and of significant public importance, and that the Reference is not merely an attempt to circumvent the established legal framework. The court's decision will not only determine the fate of the Presidential Reference but will also have broader implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. A ruling in favor of Kerala and Tamil Nadu would reaffirm the importance of respecting judicial precedent and limiting the executive's ability to challenge court decisions through indirect means. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the Union government could expand the scope of the Presidential Reference power and potentially embolden the executive to seek advisory opinions on a wider range of legal and political issues. Regardless of the outcome, the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing tensions and complexities inherent in India's federal structure. The disputes between the Union government and state governments over issues of autonomy, legislative powers, and the role of the Governor are likely to continue, and the courts will continue to play a crucial role in resolving these conflicts. The Presidential Reference case also underscores the importance of a robust and independent judiciary in safeguarding the principles of constitutional governance. The Supreme Court's willingness to scrutinize the actions of the executive branch and to uphold the rule of law is essential for maintaining public confidence in the legal system and ensuring that all branches of government operate within the bounds of the Constitution. As the hearing approaches, all eyes will be on the Constitution Bench to see how it navigates these complex legal and political issues and what impact its decision will have on the future of Indian democracy. The case is a testament to the enduring relevance of the Constitution and the importance of its interpretation in shaping the course of the nation.
The significance of the Kerala government's challenge to the Presidential Reference extends beyond the immediate legal questions at hand. It encapsulates a broader concern about the erosion of state autonomy and the increasing centralization of power in the hands of the Union government. This concern is not unique to Kerala; several other states, particularly those governed by opposition parties, have expressed similar anxieties about the Centre's alleged tendency to encroach upon their legislative and administrative domains. The use of the Governor's office as a tool to undermine state governments has also been a recurring point of contention, with accusations of Governors acting as agents of the Centre rather than impartial constitutional heads. In this context, Kerala's resistance to the Presidential Reference can be seen as a symbolic act of defiance against what it perceives as an attempt to weaken its position and undermine its authority. By challenging the Centre's decision in court, Kerala is not only defending its own interests but also sending a message to other states that they should stand up for their rights and resist any attempts to erode their autonomy. The legal battle over the Presidential Reference is therefore not just a technical legal dispute; it is a political struggle over the future of federalism in India. The outcome of the case will have a significant impact on the balance of power between the Centre and the states, and it could shape the way in which federal relations are conducted in the years to come. Moreover, the case highlights the importance of inter-state cooperation in defending the principles of federalism. Kerala's alignment with Tamil Nadu in challenging the Presidential Reference demonstrates that states can work together to protect their shared interests and resist attempts to undermine their autonomy. This cooperation is particularly important in the face of a strong and centralized Union government, which may be tempted to use its power to override the concerns of individual states. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see whether other states join Kerala and Tamil Nadu in challenging the Presidential Reference or whether they remain on the sidelines. The level of inter-state cooperation will be a key indicator of the strength of the federal spirit in India and the extent to which states are willing to stand up for their rights in the face of a powerful Union government. The Presidential Reference case is therefore a crucial test of India's federal system, and its outcome will have far-reaching consequences for the future of the country.
Source: Centre should not have asked President to issue Reference, says Kerala