Tamil Nadu CM Stalin Slams BJP Over Presidential Reference On SC Timeline For Clearing Bills

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin on Thursday condemned the BJP-led NDA government the presidential reference questioning the April 8 Supreme Court verdict where he apex court had laid down a timeline for the president and governors to decide on state bills.

In a post on X, the TN CM said, "I strongly condemn the Union Government's Presidential reference, which attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor's case and other precedents."

Stalin said that this attempt clearly exposes that Tamil Nadu Governor was acting at the behest of the BJP to undermine the people's mandate. He continued, "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."

The Tamil Nadu CM then asked why should there be any objection to prescribing time limits for Governors to act and whether the BJP seeking to legitimise its Governors' "obstruction by allowing indefinite delays in Bill assent".

He questioned, "Does the Union Government intend to paralyse non-BJP State Legislatures?"

MK Stalin then said that 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 the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties. Thus, it poses a clear exigent threat to State autonomy."

He the urged all non-BJP States and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the Constitution.

He concluded, "We will fight this battle with all our might. Tamil Nadu will fight - and #TamilNadu will win!"

The Supreme Court's April 8 verdict set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that a governor does not possess any discretion in exercise of functions under Article 200 of the Constitution in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers.

Meanwhile, President Droupadi Murmu has posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court over its April 8 verdict. President Murmu, exercised her power under rarely used Article 143 (1).

The questions posed by the President are:

What are the constitutional options before a governor when a bill is presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

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?

Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

Is Article 361 of the Constitution of India an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a governor under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and the manner of exercise of powers by the governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for the exercise of all powers under Article 200 of the Constitution of India by the governor?

Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India justiciable?

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?

In light of the constitutional scheme governing the powers of the President, is the President required to seek advice of the Supreme Court by way of a reference under Article 143 of the Constitution of India and take the opinion of the Supreme Court when the governor reserves a bill for the President's assent or otherwise?

Are the decisions of the governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?

Can the exercise of constitutional powers and the orders of/by the President/ governor be substituted in any manner under Article 142 of the Constitution of India?

Is a law made by the state legislature a law in force without the assent of the governor granted under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?

In view of the proviso to Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India, is it not mandatory for any bench of this court to first decide as to whether the question involved in the proceedings before it is of such a nature which involves substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Constitution and to refer it to a bench of minimum five judges?

(Are) the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India limited to matters of procedural law or Article 142 of the Constitution of India extends to issuing directions/passing orders which are contrary to or inconsistent with existing substantive or procedural provisions of the Constitution or law in force?

Does the Constitution bar any other jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes between the Union government and the state governments except by way of a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India?