Chennai (Tamil Nadu) [India]: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has voiced strong concern over President Droupadi Murmu’s recent reference to the Supreme Court, questioning its ruling that set time limits for the Governor and President to act on state Bills. In a letter to Chief Ministers of non-BJP-ruled states, Stalin called for a coordinated legal response to defend the federal structure and basic features of the Constitution.
“We must evolve a coordinated legal strategy before the Court and present a united front to preserve and protect the basic structure of the Constitution, as upheld by our Hon’ble Supreme Court in its historic judgement. I look forward to your immediate and personal intervention in this vital issue,” Stalin wrote.
Stalin pointed out that while the President’s reference did not name any specific judgment or state, its intent was clearly to question the findings in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case.
“Though the reference does not specifically refer to any State or judgement, its intent is to question the findings on law and interpretation of the Constitution given by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu,” he stated.
Calling the April 8 Supreme Court verdict “historic,” Stalin said it was a win for all states, particularly in resisting undue interference from unelected Governors appointed by the Union government.
“This historic judgement obtained by my Government is not only for my State but for all States since it upholds the federal structure and distribution of powers between the States and the Union, thus effectively preventing the obstruction of legislations enacted by democratically elected State Legislatures by an appointee of the Union and an unelected figurehead the Governor.”
He accused the BJP-led Centre of exploiting constitutional gaps by using Governors to delay or block laws passed in opposition-ruled states.
“All of us have been witnesses to the way in which the BJP-led Union Government have used Governors to obstruct and impede the functioning of opposition-ruled States. They inordinately delay assent to Bills, withhold assent without valid constitutional or legal reasons… They have been able to do so by taking advantage of the fact that the Constitution is silent on certain issues, because the framers of the Constitution trusted that those holding high constitutional office would act in accordance with constitutional morality.”
The Supreme Court ruling, Stalin highlighted, clarified the binding nature of Cabinet advice on Governors and set deadlines for their assent.
“Governor was bound by the aid and advice of the state cabinet while dealing with bills and cannot exercise pocket veto to delay assent to bills inordinately.”
He also stressed the importance of the court’s directive that if a Bill is re-sent to the Governor by the Assembly, assent cannot be withheld, and that Articles 200 and 201 now carry clear timelines for gubernatorial and presidential action.
“Now this judgement will ensure that the Union Government does not unduly interfere with the State Governments performing our roles and responsibilities within the spheres given to us under the Constitution.”
President Murmu’s reference to the Supreme Court’s authority to set deadlines, citing a lack of such provisions in the Constitution, has sparked widespread political and legal scrutiny.