The State of Tamil Nadu has filed a formal application before the Supreme Court opposing the maintainability of the Presidential reference on timelines for Governors to assent to bills passed by State legislatures. The State has termed the move as a legally impermissible attempt to reopen issues already settled by the Court’s April 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu.
The application, submitted in response to the reference made under Article 143 of the Constitution, asserts that the reference is effectively “an appeal in disguise.”
“The Presidential Reference dated 13.05.2025 raises questions of law… which have been directly answered by this Hon’ble Court recently in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu in an exhaustive manner,” the state government stated.
The State has urged the Supreme Court to decline answering the reference altogether.
“It is prima-facie evident that the present Presidential Reference is nothing but an appeal in disguise… Therefore, the Presidential Reference dated 13.05.2025 deserves to be unanswered as a whole and liable to be returned,” the application further states.
April Judgment Already Settled the Law, State Says
The Supreme Court, in its April 2025 verdict, had issued firm timelines for both Governors and the President to act on pending bills. A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan held that the Governor’s inaction under Article 200 of the Constitution is not immune from judicial review and must be resolved within a “reasonable time.” The Bench emphasized that constitutional silence cannot be used to paralyze the democratic process.
With regard to Article 201, the Court clarified that the President must take a decision on referred bills within three months, and any delay beyond that must be justified with reasons communicated to the State concerned.
“The President is required to take a decision on the Bills within a period of three months from the date on which such reference is received and in case of any delay beyond this period, appropriate reasons would have to be recorded and conveyed to the concerned State,” the Court had held.
President’s Reference Seeks Clarification
Despite this ruling, President Droupadi Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Supreme Court on 13 May 2025, questioning the legitimacy of the deadlines prescribed by the judiciary. The reference contends that neither Article 200 nor 201 contains explicit provisions authorizing courts to fix timelines or imply “deemed assent.”
Tamil Nadu’s application asserts that the timing and substance of the reference clearly indicate an intent to overturn the Supreme Court’s judgment.
“A cursory view of the whereas clauses… would reflect that the above Reference has been issued to overrule the decision and directions… and make it clear that the above Presidential Reference is nothing but an Appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law,” the State submitted.
Court Cannot Be Given Appellate Jurisdiction by Reference, State Says
Tamil Nadu further emphasized that the Supreme Court itself cannot re-open its own final decisions under the guise of an Article 143 reference. It added that the Governor, who was the respondent in the original case, has not filed any review or curative petition against the April 8 judgment.
“The Supreme Court cannot sit in appeal over its decision and the President cannot confer an appellate jurisdiction on the Court under Article 143 of the Constitution,” the application reads.
The State of Kerala has also filed a similar application seeking the dismissal of the Presidential reference as not maintainable.
The matter is currently being heard by a Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.