Here, by contrast, the reference follows Tamil Nadu almost immediately, and its effect is to re-open and ultimately overturn conclusions reached only months earlier. That immediacy suggests not the gradual development of constitutional uncertainty, but the revisiting of a fresh precedent – something the Court ordinarily does through a review or by constituting a larger Bench.
If doctrinal inconsistency – that is, the Tamil Nadu judgment not adhering to earlier precedent – was the Court’s concern, the Constitution and judicial practice provide a clear mechanism for addressing it: constitute a larger Bench or consider a review petition. This was the approach in Sabarimala, where, after the five-judge bench decision permitting entry to women into the temple, multiple review petitions were filed and the matter was ultimately referred to a larger Bench to ensure congruence with precedent. The judicial process was allowed to operate within its established framework.
In the present case, however, the Court adopts a different route. It maintains that it is not sitting in appeal over the Tamil Nadu judgment but merely clarifying larger constitutional principles. Yet, this characterisation sits uneasily with the outcome. The central conclusions of the Tamil Nadu verdict – on timelines and deemed assent – now stand overruled. The distinction between “clarification” and “overruling” becomes one of description rather than substance.
