Supreme Court Upholds Presidential Reference Amid Opposition Objections

The Supreme Court of India rejected objections raised by several opposition-ruled states regarding the maintainability of a Presidential Reference on October 5, 2023. States including Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala contended that the issues in the reference were already addressed in a previous verdict. However, a five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice B R Gavai, asserted that the matters at hand are crucial to the operational framework of the constitutional machinery.

In its ruling, the court emphasized the unique advisory role it holds, stating that the “power to interpret the Constitution” is a responsibility that lies solely with the judiciary. The bench declared, “The questions referred by the President pertain to the core, foundational modalities of our constitutional machinery, which ensure the continuation of our republican democracy and governance by elected representatives.” It stressed that the significance of these questions cannot be overstated, reaffirming the court’s duty under Article 143 to address such inquiries.

The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha, and A S Chandurkar, dismissed claims that the reference should be returned unanswered. The court noted that previous references, with the exception of one in 1993, had been addressed in part or in full, reinforcing the notion that this reference warrants a thorough examination.

Judicial Responsibility and Constitutional Dialogue

The Supreme Court underscored that its advisory function represents a constitutional dialogue between the executive and judiciary. It acknowledged the need to clarify the roles of constitutional institutions when doubts arise regarding their powers. The bench further indicated that the presidential reference is fundamentally distinct from previous ones, as it addresses the core functionalities of constitutional governance.

The court remarked that none of the earlier presidential references had addressed the daily operations of constitutional entities, including the interactions between state legislatures, governors, and the President concerning legislative enactments. This current reference, according to the bench, stems from a state of confusion following a ruling by a two-judge bench on April 8, 2025, which had implications for the roles of governors and the President under Article 200 and Article 201.

In concluding its remarks, the Supreme Court affirmed that an authoritative opinion is essential to eliminate confusion around these constitutional roles, asserting that clarity is vital for the smooth operation of governance. The bench’s unanimous decision highlights the court’s commitment to addressing issues that impact the fundamental principles of India’s democratic framework.