Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has strongly condemned the Union government's move to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on the powers of Governors, urging non-BJP states to unite in a "legal struggle" to defend the Constitution. Stalin accuses the Centre of attempting to undermine the Supreme Court's verdict on the Tamil Nadu Governor case and other precedents through a Presidential reference.
President Droupadi Murmu recently posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking clarity on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for granting assent to bills passed by state legislatures. This move follows the Supreme Court's April 8, 2025, ruling that criticized the Tamil Nadu Governor for withholding approval for 10 bills. The court had ruled the Governor's inaction as "illegal" and emphasized that Governors cannot reserve bills based on personal dissatisfaction or political considerations.
Stalin views the Presidential reference as a direct attack on the federal structure of India and an attempt by the BJP-led Union government to weaken democratically elected state governments, particularly those governed by opposition parties. He argues that the Centre is trying to control state governments by using Governors as agents of the Union. He questioned the motive behind objecting to time limits for Governors to act, suggesting the BJP aims to legitimize obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in bill assent.
The Chief Minister has been vocal in his criticism, stating that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP's behest to undermine the people's mandate. He sees the Presidential reference as a challenge to the authority of the Supreme Court and an attempt to subvert the constitutional position settled in the Tamil Nadu Governor case.
Stalin has written to the Chief Ministers of several non-BJP ruled states, including West Bengal, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala, Jharkhand, Punjab, and Jammu and Kashmir, requesting their support in opposing the Presidential reference. He advocates for a coordinated legal strategy to present a united front in preserving the Constitution's basic structure.
Legal experts are divided on the implications of the Presidential reference. Some, like senior advocate Kapil Sibal, believe it's a clandestine way to reverse the Supreme Court's judgment. He argues that the proper course of action would have been to seek a review or file a curative petition. Others, like former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, suggest that the President is raising a constitutional issue that warrants the court's opinion and that a review by the same bench wouldn't be decisive.
The Supreme Court's advisory opinion, while not binding, is expected to carry significant weight. Some legal experts believe the Supreme Court is not bound to provide its opinion to the President. The court's decision on whether to answer the reference and the content of its opinion will likely have far-reaching consequences for the relationship between the Union government and the states, as well as the role of Governors in the legislative process.
