BRIEF NOTE ON WRITTEN SUBMISSION UNION OF INDIA – SUBMISSION 1. The Indian Constitution upholds separation of powers with checks and balances, ensuring no organ is supreme; all three organs derive authority from the Constitution and are coequal.

BRIEF NOTE ON WRITTEN SUBMISSION

UNION OF INDIA – SUBMISSION
1. The Indian Constitution upholds separation of powers with checks and balances, ensuring no organ is supreme; all three organs derive authority from the Constitution and are coequal.

2. The constitutional functions such as powers of Hon’ble President and Governors fall within exclusive domains, immune from interference by other organs, as they indirectly represent democratic will.

3. The gubernatorial power of assent under Article 200 is unique, plenary and non-justiciable, beyond the scope to Judicial review and there is no standard to test Governor discretion.

4. The Article 200 uses distinct verbs – “assent, withhold, reserve, return” -each conferring separate powers on Governor. The Constitution consciously avoids prescribing any time limit for the exercise of these powers, thereby leaving the process flexible to meet political and constitutional exigencies. Courts cannot judicially insert time constraints or alter this design, as doing so would defeat the intent of the Framers.

5. Article 142, though wide in scope, cannot override constitutional provisions or be used to create a doctrine of “deemed assent.” The judiciary cannot arrogate to itself core functions vested in another organ, as such an approach would dissolve the constitutional equilibrium and disturb democratic governance. Perceived lapses in the functioning of high constitutional offices must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, not judicial invention.

6. In a Nutshell, the UOI submission tries to unsettle the settled principle laid down in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 SCC OnLine SC 770)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU – SUBMISSION

7. The Presidential Reference dated 13.05.2025 raises questions concerning the scope of gubernatorial powers under Article 200 and Presidential powers under Article 201. However, these questions have already been comprehensively settled by this Hon’ble Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 770, which authoritatively clarified the constitutional duties of Governors with respect to assent. Questions of the Reference are already covered by Tamil Nadu v. Governor (supra), State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor (2024) 1 SCC 384, and State of Telangana v. Governor (2023

8. Article 143 cannot be used to reopen or nullify binding judgments. In Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re (1993 Supp (1) SCC 96), this Hon’ble Court held that advisory jurisdiction cannot be converted into appellate jurisdiction. Once a legal question is adjudicated under Article 141, it attains finality and can only be revisited through review or curative jurisdiction, not through a Presidential Reference. The Court has consistently declined to answer questions already decided, purely political in nature, or beyond judicial determination.

9. The Constituent Assembly Debates and subsequent case law make it clear that Supreme court is not bound to answer Every reference. This Court has exercised its discretion to decline answering references that are inappropriate, incapable of judicial determination, or politically loaded. Moreover, advisory opinions under Article 143 are non-binding, as reaffirmed in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College (1974). It is well settled principles across the world, opinion rendered on advisory jurisdiction is like a opinion given to clients by law officers and Even if Opinion is rendered it is not binding on any court.

10. Entertaining it would erode the finality of Article 141, undermine judicial independence, and distort the separation of powers. This Hon’ble Court should thus decline to answer the Reference and return it as constitutionally impermissible.