Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has strongly criticised President Droupadi Murmu’s letter to the Supreme Court seeking clarity on whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President to assent to State Bills.
NEW DELHI: 15th May: President Droupadi Murmu has approached the Supreme Court for its opinion on whether deadlines can be imposed on Governors and the President to give assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures. This move led to political backlash, particularly from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.
The background to this matter is the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in April 2024 on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, led by the DMK. The petition had flagged that Governor RN Ravi was withholding assent to 10 Bills passed by the State Assembly.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s delay was “illegal and arbitrary” and gave a three-month deadline for clearing such Bills.
Referring to President Murmu’s letter to the apex court, Mr MK Stalin said in a post on X (formerly Twitter):
“I condemn attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu.”
He alleged that:
“This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate. This is nothing but a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected State Governments by placing them under the control of Governors serving as agents of the Union Government.”
Mr Stalin further asserted:
“It also directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution.”
In his post, Stalin posed three sharp questions to the BJP-led Central Government:
“Why should there be any objection to prescribing time limits for Governors to act? Is the BJP seeking to legitimise its Governors’ obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in Bill assent? Does the Union Government intend to paralyse non-BJP State Legislatures?”
He added that the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court revealed an ulterior political motive:
“The questions in the Presidential reference reveal the BJP-led Union Government’s sinister intent to distort the Constitution’s basic distribution of powers and incapacitate the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties.”
Finally, he issued a call for united opposition:
“In these grave circumstances, I urge all non-BJP States and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the Constitution. We will fight this battle with all our might. Tamil Nadu will fight – and Tamil Nadu will win.”
In her letter to the Supreme Court, President Murmu invoked Article 143, which allows the President to seek the court’s opinion on legal or public issues. She posed multiple important questions:
“Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?”
“In the absence of a constitutionally-prescribed timeline and the manner of exercise of powers by the President, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India?”
“Is a Governor’s exercise of constitutional discretion justiciable?”
The President also cited Article 361, which says the President or Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the performance of duties and powers.
What the Supreme Court Said in the Tamil Nadu Case
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, was aimed at resolving the delay in assent by Governor RN Ravi.
The court ruled:
“The Governor’s refusal to approve 10 Bills was illegal and arbitrary.”
The bench also emphasized the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional principles:
“However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Governor may reserve a bill for consideration of the President on grounds that the bill is perilous to the principles of democracy and an interpretation of the Constitution is necessary to ascertain whether such legislation should be granted assent or not.”
“In such cases where a bill has been reserved majorly on the grounds of not being in consonance with the constitutional principles and involves questions of constitutional validity, the executive is supposed to exercise restraint.”
“It is expected that the Union executive should not assume the role of the courts in determining the vires of a bill and should, as a matter of practice, refer such question to the Supreme Court under Article 143.”
“We have no qualms in stating that the hands of the executive are tied when engaging with purely legal issues in a bill and only the constitutional courts have the prerogative to study and provide recommendations as regards the constitutionality of a bill.”
The bench acknowledged that opinions under Article 143 are not binding, but still influential:
“However, merely because the jurisdiction under Article 143 is not binding does not undermine the principles used by this Court to determine the constitutionality of the bill.”
Further, the court noted:
“The only reason for which the legislative or the executive wing may not take note of the Supreme Court’s opinion is when the grounds on which a State bill was reserved for the consideration of the President, are not purely legal but also involve certain policy considerations, which may outweigh the issue of constitutionality.”
“In such cases, if the President acts contrary to the advice of this Court and withholds assent to a bill, he must record cogent reasons and materials that justify not granting assent.”
It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it wants to form a larger Constitution Bench to relook into this issue raised by the President or simply uphold the previous two-judge bench’s ruling.
This legal and constitutional issue arises at a critical time—just after Justice BR Gavai was sworn in as the Chief Justice of India. The court’s response will have far-reaching implications on Centre-State relations, the powers of Governors and the sanctity of legislative processes in India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
