Kerala vs Presidential Reference: Constitutional Morality vs Political Strategy?

✍️ Suryavanshi IAS Perspective – GS Paper II

---

📌 Context: Why is Kerala in the Supreme Court (Again)?

On July 28, 2025, the State of Kerala strongly urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the Presidential Reference seeking clarification on whether the judiciary can fix timelines for the President or State Governors to act on State Bills.

But here’s the twist — the Supreme Court had already decided this three months ago in the Tamil Nadu Governor case (April 8, 2025).

Kerala argues: “You can’t use Article 143 to question what the Supreme Court has already clearly ruled.”

---

⚖️ Constitutional Framework Involved

Article	Provision
Article 143	Presidential Reference – President may seek SC's advisory opinion on any matter of law or public importance
Article 141	Binding nature of Supreme Court judgments
Article 144	All authorities, civil and judicial, must act in aid of the Supreme Court
Article 200 & 201	Governor’s powers to withhold or reserve assent to Bills

📚 Kerala’s Core Arguments

✅ 1. No Advisory Role on Settled Judgments

• Presidential Reference is valid only if the legal issue is unsettled.

• SC’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu case (April 8) was authoritative.

• Hence, no “doubt” remains for Article 143 to be invoked.

✅ 2. No Review or Curative Filed

• If the Union had doubts, it should have filed a review petition, not a Presidential Reference.

• Not challenging the judgment directly means it has attained finality (Article 141).

✅ 3. Article 144 – Constitutional Obligation

• Union and President are bound to act in aid of the SC judgment, not indirectly undermine it.

---

🧠 What Was the April 8, 2025 Tamil Nadu Judgment?

• Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent to Bills.

• Court observed that constitutional functionaries must act with constitutional morality and within a reasonable timeframe.

• SC laid down binding principles on the conduct of Governors under Article 200.

---

🧩 Key Constitutional Issues at Stake

Issue	Kerala’s View
Can judiciary fix timelines for constitutional authorities?	Yes – under basic constitutional duties
Can settled judgments be questioned via Article 143?	No – Presidential Reference can’t be a “review in disguise”
What is the role of Governors?	Bound by aid and advice of Council of Ministers

---

⚠️ Kerala’s Warning: A Dangerous Precedent?

"This Reference is a ruse to overturn a binding ruling via an indirect route."

• It may weaken the authority of SC rulings.

• Politically, it hints at executive discomfort with judicial checks on Governors.

---

🔍 UPSC Mains Relevance

📘 GS Paper II – Indian Constitution & Polity

• Separation of Powers

• Judicial Review vs Executive Power

• Role of Governors in federalism

• Article 143 advisory jurisdiction limits

📘 GS Paper II – Federalism

• Centre vs State friction

• Misuse of Governor’s office

• Judicial safeguarding of legislative process

---

✍️ Sample Mains Question (GS II):

Q. Discuss the constitutional implications of using Article 143 to seek an advisory opinion on a matter already decided by the Supreme Court. Can such references undermine the finality of judicial pronouncements?

📝 Answer Tip:
Include:

• Article 143's scope

• Binding nature of Article 141

• Tamil Nadu Governor case

• Kerala’s position and implications on cooperative federalism

---

📌 Conclusion: Constitution is Not a Loop-Hole System

Kerala’s stance upholds a strong constitutional principle — finality of judgments, respect for institutions, and preventing executive overreach. Any attempt to reinterpret a settled decision without proper review mechanisms is not just legally weak, but ethically dangerous.

"The Constitution speaks through the Court — not against it."

---

📍 Address: Suryavanshi IAS, 638/20(K-344), राहुल विहार, तुलसी कार केयर के पास, लखनऊ
📞 Contact: 6306446114
🌐 Website: suryavanshiias.blogspot.com