CM Stalin criticises President Murmu’s move to reopen SC ruling on Governor's bill delays

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has fiercely criticised President Droupadi Murmu’s decision to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on its earlier ruling that set a timeline for Governors and the President to clear legislative Bills.

Calling it a “desperate attempt,” Stalin alleged it was part of a broader move by the BJP-led Union government to weaken non-BJP state governments through politically motivated obstruction.

The controversy stems from a recent Supreme Court verdict in a case filed by the DMK government, which had highlighted the long delay in clearing 10 Bills pending with Governor RN Ravi. The court, in a landmark ruling, had deemed the Governor’s inaction as “illegal and arbitrary” and ordered that such Bills must be acted upon within three months.

Now, President Murmu has invoked Article 143 of the Constitution — which allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on legal or constitutional questions — to clarify whether the judiciary can impose timelines and guidelines on how the President or Governors should deal with state Bills.

Specifically, the President asked if Governors are bound to follow the advice of their state’s Council of Ministers under Article 200 and whether the courts can question the discretionary powers of Governors, citing protections under Article 361.

In response, Stalin posted a strong message on social media platform X, condemning the move and accusing the Union government of trying to bypass a settled constitutional matter. “This exposes how the Tamil Nadu Governor acted under BJP’s direction to block the people’s mandate,” Stalin wrote. He called it an attempt to impose central control over democratically elected state governments via Governors acting as Union agents.

Stalin posed three sharp questions:

One, why oppose time limits for Governors to act on Bills?

Two, is the BJP trying to justify Governors stalling legislation indefinitely?

Three, does the Union government aim to cripple opposition-led state assemblies?

He further urged all non-BJP-ruled states and opposition leaders to join Tamil Nadu in defending federal principles and constitutional values, declaring, “Tamil Nadu will fight — and Tamil Nadu will win.”

The original Supreme Court ruling had emphasised that while the Governor could reserve a Bill for Presidential consideration in exceptional cases, such action should be based on serious constitutional concerns, not political motivations. The Court also noted that only constitutional courts, not the executive, are empowered to interpret legal questions surrounding the validity of Bills.

Although the court acknowledged that its advisory opinions under Article 143 are not binding, it insisted that its legal reasoning must not be dismissed lightly, especially in cases where constitutional issues are at stake. If a Bill is rejected despite the Court's guidance, the President must provide a detailed justification, it said.

With the President’s new referral, it is now up to the Supreme Court — possibly under a new Constitution bench — to decide whether to re-examine its judgment or uphold the existing interpretation. This legal face-off comes as Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai begins his tenure.