Supreme Court declines to revisit April 12 order on Governors, President

The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified it will not revisit its April 12 ruling that set deadlines for President Droupadi Murmu and state Governors to act on bills passed by legislatures. A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, hearing a presidential reference, said the court’s role in such proceedings was purely “advisory” and not appellate.

The April 12 verdict, which dealt with a dispute between Tamil Nadu’s DMK government and Governor R.N. Ravi, had termed the Governor’s refusal to grant assent to 10 reintroduced bills as “illegal” and “arbitrary”. The bench reiterated that its observations then remained binding and that it would not reopen that case. “We are only expressing our opinion on the law. We are not sitting in appeal over the Tamil Nadu matter,” the Chief Justice remarked. Justice Surya Kant added that Article 143 empowered the court to advise the President on matters of constitutional importance, but not to override existing judgments.

The five-judge Bench, which also includes Justices Vikram Nath, P.S. Narasimha, and A. Chandurkar, first heard objections raised by senior advocates K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu. They argued that the 14 questions sent by the President in her reference had already been answered in the April ruling and could not be re-litigated under the guise of advisory jurisdiction. Mr. Venugopal contended that any judgment delivered by the Supreme Court, regardless of bench strength, is binding, and pointed to precedents such as the 2G spectrum case to assert that Article 143 could not be used as an indirect appeal. He further suggested that the reference reflected the Union government’s attempt to challenge a ruling without filing a review petition, since the President is bound by ministerial advice.

Mr. Singhvi supported this view, stressing that Article 143 could not substitute for review or curative powers and was not meant to function as an intra-court appeal. The Bench, however, noted that constitutional benches have traditionally addressed questions of “substantial importance,” citing earlier rulings involving the governors of Punjab, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu that were delivered by five-judge benches.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani countered by recalling that he had previously sought a larger bench for the Tamil Nadu matter. He and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the court did retain the authority to reconsider its earlier judgments under Article 143, with Mr. Mehta describing the supposed limitation as a “self-imposed restriction.” The Constitution does not prevent the court from reviewing or even overruling its earlier views, he said.

The Bench will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday.