New Delhi:
The letter by President Draupadi Murmu in the Supreme Court, demanding clarity on the decision that the President and the Governors have effectively fixed a time limit to clean the bills passed by the Legislature, have given a strong reaction to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin.
The historic decision of the Supreme Court came on a petition by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu, in which 10 bills were kept pending on the approval of Governor RN Ravi.
I strongly condemn the context of the President of the Union Government, which tries to end the constitutional situation already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and other examples.
This effort clearly reveals the fact that Tamil Nadu …
– Mkstalin (@mkstalin) May 15, 2025
Referring to the President’s letter, in an X post, Mr. Stalin said that “he condemns efforts to eliminate the constitutional status already settled by the Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu case.” This effort clearly reveals the fact that the Governor of Tamil Nadu acted at the behest of the BJP to reduce the mandate of the people. This is nothing, but is a desperate effort to weaken democratically elected state governments, keeping them under the control of the governor of the central government agents, it directly challenges the prominence of the law. “
Mr. Stalin asked three questions: “Why should there be any objection to setting up the deadline for the work of the governors? Is the BJP demanding an indefinite delay in the bill demanding to legalize the obstruction of its governors? Does the central government intend to cripple the non-BJP state assemblies?”
He alleged that in the context of the President, the question “The terrible intentions of the BJP -led Union Government show that the basic distribution of the Constitution to distort the original distribution of powers and influence the state assemblies dominated by opposition parties”.
He said, “Under these serious circumstances, I urge all non -BJP states and party leaders to join this legal struggle to protect the Constitution. We will fight this fight with all our strengths. Tamil Nadu will fight – and Tamil Nadu will win,” he said.
President Draupadi Murmu has asked the Supreme Court whether the deadline can be spent on the governors. It has sought the opinion of the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to consult the court on legal issues or matters of public importance.
“Has the Governor assisted and advised by assistance and advice by the Council of Ministers, using all the options available with him when a bill was presented to him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?” The President asked the Supreme Court.
He also asked if the practice of constitutional discretion of a governor is justified – under a test in court. He cited Article 361 of the Constitution, stating that the President or Governor would not be accountable to any court for the practice of the powers and duties of the post. “In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time -outline and method of practice of powers by the President, can the deadline be imposed and the method of exercise through judicial orders for the practice of discretion by the President under Article 201 of the Constitution of India is determined?” President Murmu asked the court.
In April, a bench of Justice JB Pardwala and Justice R Mahadan used special powers of the court to solve the bills on the bills that stopped between Tamil and Governor RN Ravi. The court said that the Governor’s refusal to approve 10 bills was “illegal and arbitrary” and set a three -month deadline for the President and Governors to clean the bills passed by the Legislature for the second time.
The judgment also states that the President should consult the courts on constitutional matters.
The bench said that if the matter is related to policies, the Supreme Court may refuse to express its advisory opinion. “In matters related to purely political views, the practice of a self-laughable restraint by the court is in line with the principle of political thicken, that is, the courts do not enter into the areas of governance in which the Constitution gives a completely a privilege to the executive.”
“However, in some extraordinary circumstances, the Governor may reserve a bill to consider the President on the basis that the bill is dangerous for the principles of democracy and an interpretation of the constitution is necessary to find out whether such a law should be accepted or not. In cases where a bill is not given to the constitution for the constitution.”
“It is expected that the executive of the Sangh should not accept the role of courts in determining the virus of a bill and as a practice case, refer to such questions in the Supreme Court under Article 143. We have no qualification to tell that the hands of the executive are attached to the hands of the executive with purely legal issues and only the constitution courts are required,”
The order underlined that the court is aware of the “non-comprehensive nature” of its advisory jurisdiction. “However, only because the jurisdiction under Article 143 is not binding, does not reduce the principles used by this court to determine the constitutionality of the bill,” it said.
The order states that the “only cause” for which the legislative or executive wing cannot pay attention to the opinion of the Supreme Court “is that on the basis of which a state bill was reserved for the idea of the President is not purely legal, but some of the policy views, which can overtake the issue of constitutionalism”. “In such cases, if the President acts contrary to the advice of this court and approves for a bill, they should record reasons and materials that do not assure,” the order said.
It is now a privilege of the Supreme Court whether it establishes a constitution bench to look into the issue raised by the President or repeat the decision of the two prior judges. It comes at a time when the apex court has found a new head in the Chief Justice of India, Bra Gawai, who was sworn in yesterday.
