🏛️ Can Presidential Reference Change a Supreme Court Judgment?

On April 8th, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment involving the Tamil Nadu Governor and state legislature. It ruled that withholding assent to state bills indefinitely is unconstitutional. This verdict redefined how Article 200 of the Indian Constitution is interpreted—laying down a time-bound process for the governor to act on bills.

But this triggered a major question:

Can the judiciary set deadlines for the executive?

Is it a case of judicial overreach?

To address this, the President invoked Article 143(1), seeking the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court. The core issue:

👉 Can courts prescribe how and when constitutional authorities must act?

This is not just a constitutional debate—it’s a critical moment in Indian democratic functioning. The President's reference raises deeper concerns about separation of powers and the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction.

Past judgments have been contradictory:

🔹 Non-binding in St. Xavier’s College vs Gujarat (1974)

🔹 Binding in RK Garg vs Union of India (1981)

Now, all eyes are on how the Court interprets its own role and powers. Whether it responds, and whether its opinion holds binding value, will shape the balance between judiciary and executive for years to come.

Let’s watch how this constitutional saga unfolds in the coming Supreme Court session.

#JudicialOverreach #IndianConstitution #SupremeCourt #PresidentialReference #Article143 #Article200 #GovernorsRole #LegalUpdates #IndianPolitics #DemocracyInAction #Federalism #PublicLaw #TamilNadu #ConstitutionalLaw #LawInFocus