The difference of opinion about the deadline for the governor of Tamil Nadu, as well as the subsequent presidential reference under Article 143, constitute a significant turning point in constitutional law. Specifically, it examines the equilibrium that exists between written requirements, such as the mandate for legislative sessions to take place every two years, and the norms that control the behavior of governors. Because of the advisory judgment issued by the Supreme Court, the concept of gubernatorial powers and the relationship between the center and the state will be shaped for many years to come. In conclusion, this case highlights the critical need of having clear constitutional mandates, maintaining steadfast respect for democratic procedures, and exercising discretionary power in a deliberate manner by constitutional officials.