President Droupadi Murmu's letter to the Supreme Court seeking clarity on the verdict that effectively set a deadline for the President of India and governors to clear the Bills referred to it by the state government following their passage in respective state legislatures has drawn strong condemnation from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK chief MK Stalin.
Taking to X, Stalin termed the Centre's presidential reference as a "desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected state governments" and a "direct challenge to the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court" on matters pertaining to the Constitution.
"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. It also directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution," Stalin said, adding that the development had exposed the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate.
"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?" Stalin asked in a post on X.
Stalin further said that the nation stands at a critical juncture and alleged that the questions raised in the reference reveal the BJP-led Union government’s "sinister intent" to distort the Constitution’s basic distribution of powers and "incapacitate" state legislatures dominated by opposition parties.
"It poses a clear exigent threat to state autonomy," he added.
Notably, the Supreme Court's landmark verdict had come on a petition by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu, flagging 10 Bills pending the clearance of Governor RN Ravi.
Questioning if timelines could be imposed on Governors, President Murmu sought the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, which gives the President the power to consult the court on legal issues or matters of public importance.
"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?" the President asked the Supreme Court.
She also asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable -- subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.
"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?" President Murmu asked the top court.
In April, a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan had invoked special powers to resolve a stalemate over stalled Bills between the DMK government in Tamil and Governor RN Ravi. The court said the Governor's refusal to approve 10 Bills was "illegal and arbitrary" and set a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to clear Bills passed by the legislature for a second time.
The judgment also said the President must consult the courts on constitutional matters.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
