Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian Model government is perhaps the only voice that took exception to the President of India seeking the Apex Court’s opinion, terming it “autocratic”. Critics say he has been misguided by his advisors or bureaucrats, whose poor understanding of the Constitution has been exposed once again.
President Droupadi Murmu made a reference to the Supreme Court on 15 May to decide whether this can be done through judicial orders in the absence of a constitutionally prescribed timeline. The Central Government has now invoked the President’s powers under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on a plethora of contentious issues arising from the 8 March judgement.
Soon after this news broke, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin took to his social media handle X, opposing the move as autocratic. Stalin said that he would consult Chief Ministers and leaders of other states on the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court regarding assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
He 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. This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate.”
Stalin added, “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.”
He posed the following questions to the Union Government:
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 stated, “Our nation stands at a critical juncture. 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 the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties. Thus, it poses a clear, exigent threat to State autonomy. In these grave circumstances, I urge all non-BJP States and party leaders to join this legal struggle to defend the #Constitution. We will fight this battle with all our might. Tamil Nadu will fight — and #TamilNadu will win!”
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.
This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu…
— M.K.Stalin – தமிழ்நாட்டை தலைகுனிய விடமாட்டேன் (@mkstalin) May 15, 2025
Replying to a media query, Stalin said, “Not just now, continuously the Centre is behaving autocratically.” According to him, the current move is “an attempt to subvert the constitutional position” settled by the top court in Tamil Nadu’s case against the Governor and other precedents.
In a strong rebuttal, the Tamil Nadu BJP questioned why Stalin is afraid. In a post on the social media platform X, it said CM Thiru @mkstalin avl’s condemnation of the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court is not a defence of federalism or state autonomy — it is a blatant political smokescreen. “By questioning Honourable President Smt. Droupadi Murmu avl’s constitutional right under Article 143 to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion, CM Thiru MK Stalin avl is undermining the very structure that holds our democracy together. When constitutional ambiguities arise, especially after a judicial verdict, it is appropriate for the President to seek clarity.”
CM Thiru @mkstalin avl’s condemnation of the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court is not a defence of federalism or state autonomy – it is a blatant political smokescreen. By questioning Honourable President Smt. Droupadi Murmu’ avls constitutional right under Article 143… https://t.co/cTGotCJyxu
— BJP Tamilnadu (@BJP4TamilNadu) May 15, 2025
The Tamil Nadu BJP said, “The Honourable President’s questions are rooted in constitutional logic. Can Governors be bound by ministerial advice at all times? Can courts impose timelines when the Constitution doesn’t? These are not partisan queries; they’re foundational. Thiru Stalin avl’s discomfort suggests he wants unchecked power for State Governments, even if it means bypassing constitutional norms. Ironically, while he supports the Supreme Court prescribing timelines, he objects to the President asking whether such directions are even constitutionally permissible. Is Thiru Stalin avl defending judicial overreach simply because it suits his political agenda? Instead of welcoming a genuine debate on constitutional interpretation, CM Thiru MK Stalin avl is attacking constitutional processes to score political points. His reckless rhetoric against the President disrespects the office and reveals his true intent to portray lawful scrutiny as a political conspiracy.”
Critics, including legal experts, argue, “How can he question the President for availing her rights under the Constitution to seek legal clarity? He was the one who did not honour the Supreme Court verdict on NEET and passed resolutions twice in the State Assembly seeking exemption for Tamil Nadu. He and his son Udhayanidhi made a poll promise that they would abolish NEET soon after coming to power. If he condemns the President for her move, we should also question his stand on NEET against the Supreme Court verdict. The same Supreme Court upheld the repealing of Article 370 and stressed the need for NRC in Assam, which he has not accepted. Yet he selectively welcomed the orders that supported his stand.”
Supreme Court judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in an interview with the media, said, “The power of the President to make a reference can’t be taken away by the Supreme Court’s review or curative jurisdiction. A review again would be by the same two-judge bench that gave the judgement. Here, the President is saying there is a constitutional issue involved and needs an opinion from the Court.” He added that he had “grave reservations about the Court’s use of Article 142 in the judgement, which is restricted to the parties — the State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Governor — in the dispute and can’t be applied to issue directions against the President and other State Governors who were not part of the litigation.”
However, Supreme Court senior advocate Kapil Sibal concurred with CM Stalin’s views, stating that it was a clandestine way to reverse the judgement by a two-judge bench. Whatever the case may be, the Presidential reference is not binding. The President was within her right to seek a reference, but the Apex Court is not obliged to answer it.
Comments