Talking about the Supreme Court’s decision, Stalin said the apex court’s verdict had become an important milestone to strengthen cooperative federalism in India.
Chennai, April 27: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin, on Sunday, honoured Supreme Court lawyers who represented the state in the important case about the Governor’s approval for Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly.
At a special event in Chennai, Stalin congratulated senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, and P Wilson, who is also a DMK Rajya Sabha Member.
Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who had also argued for Tamil Nadu in the case, could not attend the event.
Speaking about him, Stalin said, “India never had a golden age,” and praised Rohatgi for his contribution on behalf of the state government.
Appreciating the efforts of the advocates, Stalin said they have helped many individuals, organisations, and even governments to win cases in the past. However, he pointed out that this victory was special. He said, this win was not just for one state but for all states, their people, and for democracy itself.
As Stalin stated, “As long as there is democracy in this soil, this case and you who put forth strong arguments, will be forever discussed.”
Stalin also shared that the success of this case had inspired the Tamil Nadu government to take further action. He mentioned that he had already announced the setting up of a panel to study Centre-State relations in light of the energy and confidence this judgment has brought.
Talking about the Supreme Court’s decision, Stalin said the apex court’s verdict had become an important milestone to strengthen cooperative federalism in India.
He said, “The SC verdict has shown the way to achieve cooperative federalism.”
He added that the Supreme Court’s decision to fix a specific timeframe for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by the State Assemblies was a major step forward.
Calling it a historic moment, Stalin said, “The apex court setting a timeframe for the President and Governor to decide on bills was a ‘huge victory’.”
Finally, he highlighted the long-term importance of the judgment, stating that it would always protect the rights of states in the sharing of powers between the Central and State governments.
As he said, “It will forever protect states’ rights in the devolution of power with the Central government.”
In a landmark ruling that is already sending ripples through India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court has delivered its verdict in the high-stakes constitutional battle between the State of Tamil Nadu and its Governor, raising serious questions on the boundaries of judicial intervention in executive discretion.
The apex court’s detailed 400+ page ruling, delivered by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, unpacks multiple facets of the constitutional relationship between an elected state government and the Governor.
From withholding assent to bills, delays in sanction for prosecution, to ministerial appointments and premature release of prisoners.
But beyond the procedural scrutiny, the judgment wades into contentious terrain — potentially tilting the scales in favor of judicial supremacy over executive discretion, inviting a broader debate on judicial overreach.
Top Court said that if the President of India withholds assent (approval) on a bill which has been passed by a state assembly and sent by the state Governor for the President’s consideration, then the state government has the right to directly approach the Supreme Court.
This major judgment came from a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on April 8, in response to a plea by the Tamil Nadu government. The DMK-led Tamil Nadu government had complained about long delays in getting assent for several bills passed by the state assembly.
These bills were sent to Governor R N Ravi, who had then reserved them for the President’s consideration, instead of giving his assent or returning them.
The Supreme Court gave a big relief to the Tamil Nadu government by clearing ten bills that had been stuck. The court also clearly said that Governors must act on bills passed by the state assembly within a reasonable time and cannot delay them unnecessarily.
In the detailed judgment written by Justice Pardiwala, which runs into 415 pages, the court discussed the powers of the Governor under Article 200 and of the President under Article 201 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 200 explains what a Governor can do when a bill is passed by a state assembly – either give assent, withhold assent, or send it to the President. Article 201 explains what happens when the Governor reserves a bill for the President’s consideration.
The court said that the actions of both the Governor and the President related to state bills can be reviewed by the courts under certain situations.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President and the President in turn withholds assent thereto then, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before this Court,”
-the court said.
The Supreme Court stressed that these important constitutional powers given to the Governor and President must be used properly and not in an unfair or irresponsible way.
“Where the Governor reserves a bill for the consideration of the President in his own discretion and contrary to the aid and advice tendered to him by the State Council of Ministers, it shall be open to the State Government to assail such an action before the appropriate High Court or this Court,”
-the judgment further said.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
