Kerala Criticizes Centre’s Request for Presidential Reference

Swift Summary

• Kerala has argued against a Presidential Reference advised by the Union Council of Ministers regarding the supreme Court’s April 8 judgment on timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.
• the state submitted that the questions raised in the Reference are no longer unresolved (res integra), as they were conclusively addressed in the Tamil Nadu Governor case judgment.
• A Constitution Bench headed by chief Justice B.R. Gavai is slated to hear preliminary objections from Kerala and Tamil Nadu regarding this Presidential Reference starting August 19, 2025.
• Kerala stated that Article 143 of the Constitution applies only when new legal or factual questions arise, which is not applicable here as these matters were already settled by Supreme Court rulings.
• Both states cited Article 141, emphasizing that law laid down by Supreme Court judgments is binding on all entities, including ministers advising the President.
• Kerala also noted that no further review or curative petitions challenging this verdict have been filed, signifying its finality.

For detailed coverage: Read More

Indian Opinion Analysis

Kerala’s objection to a Presidential Reference under Article 143 highlights critical constitutional principles, such as judicial finality and adherence to apex court rulings. The invocation of Articles 141 and 143 underscores a potential tension between executive actions and judicial independence. If courts allow advisory jurisdiction over previously resolved matters (as claimed by Kerala),it could lead to indirect challenges against binding decisions long accepted without formal review.

The upcoming hearings before a Constitution Bench hold significance not only for resolving procedural maintainability but also for setting broader jurisprudential precedents about limits on executive power vis-à-vis judiciary rulings. States like Tamil Nadu aligning with arguments presented by kerala may bolster their stance against perceived circumvention of established legal norms while reinforcing concerns about preserving federal integrity amidst growing complexities between government institutions.