New Delhi, Aug. 20 -- The judgment in the Tamil Nadu vs Governor case holds no matter what the Supreme Court's response is to the presidential reference on the powers of governors and the President in granting assent to state bills, according to the constitution bench of the Supreme Court, which is considering the reference. The bench made it clear on Tuesday that it was exercising only its advisory role and not sitting in appeal over the judgment in the Tamil Nadu governor case, which mandated fixed timelines for governors and the President to sign off on state bills. The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai, further emphasised that the presidential reference under Article 143 is "purely advisory" in nature, does not bind any authority, and it is ultimately for the President to decide whether to accept the court's opinion. "We will be expressing just a view of law, not revisiting the decision in the Tamil Nadu case," said the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar. It stressed that under Article 143 the court may clarify whether a judgment lays down the correct law but cannot overrule it. This clarification came during an exchange with senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued on behalf of the state of Tamil Nadu that the April 8 verdict by a two-judge bench and the point of law had become inseparably fused, such that any contrary view in the reference would unsettle the decision itself. The bench responded: "If we accept your views, once a judgment is delivered, everything should stop at that? This is purely advisory and there is nothing mandatory. This has been settled by previous benches as well. We are not deciding the correctness of the Tamil Nadu judgment. We are only going to answer the reference. It is only an opinion and therefore, the question of it having a binding effect on a judgment does not arise."...