Stalin reacts after SC says timelines can't be imposed on governors, President: 'Won't rest till Constitution is amended'

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin. (File photo)

A day after the Supreme Court rejected objections by opposition-ruled state against maintainability of Presidential Reference, Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin vowed to "continue the fight" until the Constitution is amended to impose a deadline on Governors to decide on bills.

In an elaborate post on X in Tamil, Stalin asserted that the state would not back down from its demand for mandatory timelines for Governors to act on Bills passed by elected legislatures.

On Thursday, the apex court refused to accept the preliminary objections raised by states like Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Kerala to maintainability of Presidential Reference, saying the issues raised in it pertain to the very core and foundational modalities of the constitutional machinery.

“Our struggle to uphold state rights and true federalism will continue! We will not rest until the Constitution is amended to impose a deadline on Governors to decide on bills!” he said, stressing that the Supreme Court’s explanations to the President’s questions would not influence the April 8, 2025 verdict in the case filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the Governor.

Stalin said the court had reaffirmed key principles central to democratic governance:

* “The government elected by the people should rule, there cannot be two centers of power in the state.”

* “Those holding constitutional positions should act within the framework of the Constitution and should not act in violation of the Constitution!”

* “The Governor does not have a fourth option of refusing to approve the bill / withholding it indefinitely...”

* “The Governor cannot delay indefinitely without taking a decision on the bills.”

Citing various legal precedents, Stalin said that states have the right to approach courts if Governors deliberately delay decisions.

He pointed to the 1974 St. Xavier's College, Ahmedabad v. State of Gujarat judgment where a nine-judge bench observed that “the opinions expressed by the courts are like the opinions expressed by the government's attorneys and have no value beyond that,” underscoring that advisory opinions are not binding verdicts.

Stalin also asserted that Tamil Nadu’s legal fight had made it clear that Governors cannot hide behind Article 361 and must be held accountable when they obstruct the legislative process. “No position created by the Constitution is beyond the law,” he said, adding that the judiciary remained the only recourse when constitutional authorities violate limits.

“Let us continue to work to ensure that the will of the people of Tamil Nadu is fulfilled through laws, and that the constitutional instruments function within the Constitution! Let us keep our promise!” he said.

The opposition-ruled states had argued that the Presidential Reference should be returned unanswered since the issues were already dealt with in the April 8 verdict concerning Tamil Nadu.

The bench said the questions raised by the President were of profound constitutional importance and went to the “very core, and foundational modalities of our constitutional machinery.” It held that the court had both the institutional authority and constitutional duty to interpret the Constitution when such doubts arise.

The court observed:

* Issues raised relate to the functioning of constitutional authorities such as Governors and Presidents under Articles 200 and 201.

* Earlier rulings show variance that requires authoritative clarity.

* The advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 is a constitutional dialogue between the executive and judiciary, and cannot be avoided.

The bench also dismissed allegations of mala fides over the non-disclosure of the April 8 judgment while seeking the reference, calling it “a leap in logic”.

Tamil Nadu has been locked in a prolonged confrontation with Governor R N Ravi, accusing him of sitting on Bills passed by the Assembly. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling holding that Governors cannot indefinitely delay decisions, nor withhold assent without reason. The verdict seen as a major win for state governments.

The state subsequently moved the Supreme Court again to seek enforcement of timelines for Governors, while also pressing for constitutional amendments to prevent prolonged delays.