On Tuesday (July 22, 2025), the Supreme Court issued the Union Government and all states on the presidential legacy that sought their opinion on whether the president and governors could be judged to be in favor of the prescribed time axes on proposals approved by state lawmakers. The bench of the Constitution led by the chief judge Bravai and including Judge Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and as Chandurkar indicated that detailed hearing will begin around mid -August. The case was listed for further instructions on July 29, when the court will complete the schedule of marathon hearing.
The legacy, which was made under Article 143 of the Constitution, comes from the submission of 14 questions by President Droubadi Murm after the decision of the Supreme Court 8 April. This decision, which was provided by the JB Parddiwal and R. Mahadevan bench, arose from the petition filed by the government Tamil Nadu, which delayed the Governor RN Ravi in granting consent to the ten accounts that were submitted by the state legislator. The judges believed that the long -term inactivity of the governor was illegal and for the first time imposed on the governors and presidents of the court -enforceable timeline to act under state laws.
The presidential legacy generally seeks clarity whether the courts can prescribe a manner and time frame in which constitutional authorities, such as president and governors, must act. However, opposition leaders and lawyers They criticized this step and considered it an attempt to distribute the legal status confirmed in the decision 8 April. They argue that the Union’s government is trying to circumvent the conventional appeal process by invoking Article 143 to indirectly question the unfavorable judgment.
What does the court’s advisory jurisdiction mean?
Article 143 para. This provision monitors its origin to section 213 of the 1935 Indian Government Act, which granted similar powers to the Federal Court of India. The only prerequisite is that the president must be assured that such a question has arisen or is likely to arise and that it is of such a nature and such public importance to guarantee the opinion of the court. This power has been caused at least 14 times from independence. However, the court is obliged to confine strictly to the questions given by the President and must not exceed the extent of the legacy.
The integration of this provision was not without a debate in the Constitutional Assembly. Several members expressed concern that such advisory jurisdiction could be misused for political goals. Framers eventually retained this and acknowledged its usefulness in solving constitutional supports and beyond the normal court proceedings. In order to avoid abuse, it was agreed and later codified in Article 145 (3) that the presidential links must be heard by a bench at least five judges. ”
Can it refuse the link?
Although the Supreme Court agreed to entertain the current legacy, it is not obliged to do so in any case. IN In Re: Bill Special Courts (1978)The Court ruled that the use of the word “may” in Article 143 (1), which stipulates that the court “may, as he considers it appropriate, to report his opinion on his opinion”, grant discretion to the discretion of discretion. However, if the court decides not to respond, it must record its reasons. This position has been reaffirmed Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994)If the court has ruled that the legacy may be rejected in terms of questions requiring professional evidence or question of a purely political nature that the court is not eligible to decide.
In 1993, the Supreme Court refused to respond to the presidential legacy of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid. Justices am Ahmadi and SP Bharucha cited a civic suit in the same problem as the reasons for refusing to answer. They also decided that the legacy was “unconstitutional” because it violated the principle of secularism, and expressed concern that the government could use an advisory opinion of the court on another political agenda.
A similar case occurred in 1982, when the court decided not to respond to the legacy of President Giani Zail Singh on the constitutionality of the proposed law, which facilitates the relocation or permanent return of individuals (or their descendants), who between March 1, 1947 and 14 May and 14 May 1954 and 14 May and 14 May 1954 and 14 May. 14 May 1954, and 14 May 1954, and 14th May 1954, and 14 May 1954, and 14th May 1954, and 14 May 1954, and 14 May 1954, and 1454, and 14 May 1947 and 14 May 1947 and 14 May 1947 and 14 May 1954. The State Law of 1982 of 1982 in 1982 and received the Governor’s approval. The law was later questioned by regular proceedings at the Supreme Court.
Are the representatives binding?
The binding force of the consulting views depicted by the Supreme Court remains questioned. Article 141 of the Constitution states that the “law announced” by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India. IN St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974)The Court explained that consulting views did not represent binding precedents, although they command significant convincing powers.
Nevertheless, there have been cases where the court seemed to consider such opinions to be authoritative. IN Vanantlal Maganbhai Sanjanwal v. State of Bombay (1961)The court relied on the counseling opinion rendered In Re: The Law on the Laws of Delhi (1951) decide on the question of excessive legislative delegation. A more remarkable example is RK Garg v. Union of India (1981)Where the justice of PN Bhagwati considered legal reasoning on the draft Act on Special Courts as a binding precedent. This was despite the explicit win of the judiciary YV Chandrachud in this legacy that the opinion of the court was not binding on other courts.
The ambiguity persisted In Re: Cauvery Water Dissates Tribunal (1991)Where the court reiterated that advisory opinions are entitled to “due weight and respect” and “usually followed”. However, he abstained from solving the question of their binding nature and observed that the problem could be revised at a more suitable time.
At present, no advisory opinion issued in the current presidential legacy would have binding strength. The judgment of the Supreme Court of April 8, which was issued in the exercise of his judicial jurisdiction under Article 141, would continue to win regardless of his opinion.
Meanwhile, similar petitions filed by Kerala and Pandjab remain awaiting court. Kerala tried to withdraw her action and claimed that the judgment 8 of April had already resolved the law. However, the Union government against the withdrawal against collection and claims that the Kerala case differs from the case of Tamil Nadu. However, it is expected that the advisory opinion in this legacy in this proceedings will bring a convincing weight.
Can the court turn its decision of April 8 through a link?
In its opinion, the Supreme Court stressed that Article 143 cannot be used as a means for the court for water disputes in Voda. “When this court declares its authoritative opinion on the question of the law in its court jurisdiction, it cannot be said that there is doubt about the question of law or the same is the Res integra to require the President to know what the actual determination is on the question,” he said. He also warned that he could not “consider the situation” where the question in the legacy is framed in a way that effectively revises the resolved court decision.
In accordance with this, the only legitimate path that the Union’s government is intended to challenge the decision of April 8 would be to trigger a review of the court or therapeutic jurisdiction.
However, in the allocation of natural resources (2012), however, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional Bar Association of its ability to clarify, rework or even formulate a new view of the law under Article 143 (1), if the Decidendi ratio remains untouched. The legacy that was made by the then President Pratibh Patil followed the decision of the court, which canceled the allocation of the 2G spectrum and ordered the auctions as the only method of spectrum distribution. While the bench with five judges acknowledged that the judgment had reached the finality, he decided that the legal principles that were the basis that they could further clarify.
Similarly, in 1998, the presidential legacy was used to regulate certain aspects of the previous decision on court appointments. While reaffirms the validity of the collective system Association of Advocates of the Supreme Court v. Union India (1993)The court revised the composition and functioning of the college, thus improving the appointment process without overturning an earlier judgment.
Therefore, although the judgment of 8 April is final and binding, its findings on the law may still be refined or processed by pentagonal benches that hear this legacy. The legacy also contains 14 laws, which usually stem from the decision of 8 April but are not limited to it. In particular, the last three questions raise wider problems regarding the scope and performance of the Supreme Court’s powers according to the Constitution.
Published – July 22, 2025 21:05
