In a landmark Presidential Reference opinion, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has unanimously held that it cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The Court also issued a categorical rejection of the concept of “deemed assent,” calling it a judicial takeover of executive functions and “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.”

The opinion, delivered by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar, answered 14 constitutional questions raised by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143.

However, even as the ruling became public, News7 Tamil published a completely false interpretation of the verdict, claiming the Supreme Court had “returned” the questions and dismissed the reference – the precise opposite of what the Bench actually held.

In a news card still present on its X handle at the time of publishing this report, Dravidianist media News7 Tamil claimed: “Returned by Supreme Court” 
“The Supreme Court sent it back! The Supreme Court has dismissed the questions raised by the President regarding the deadline for assent to bills, saying they are unnecessary,” said the news card.

This statement is factually incorrect. The Supreme Court did not return the reference, did not dismiss the questions, and did not say they were unnecessary. Instead, the Court answered every one of the 14 questions, clarified the constitutional scheme in detail, and laid down binding principles.

What the Supreme Court Actually Held

1. No Fixed Timelines for Governors or President

The Court ruled that the Constitution deliberately uses elastic language and courts cannot fix strict deadlines.

2. No “Deemed Assent” Under Any Circumstance

The Court said using Article 142 to force assent or treat inaction as assent would be “a takeover” of executive functions and is impermissible.

3. “Limited Mandamus” Allowed in Cases of Prolonged Inaction

If a Governor’s unexplained delay frustrates the legislative process, courts may direct the Governor to make a decision — but cannot comment on the merits.

4. Governor’s Options Clarified

Assent, withhold + return, or reserve for President.
Withholding assent without returning the Bill is unconstitutional.

5. Actions of Governors Not Generally Justiciable

Courts cannot review the merits of the decision, only the delay.

6. Article 361 Immunity Does Not Shield the Office

Governors cannot be sued personally, but their offices are subject to judicial direction.

7. President’s Decisions Non-Justiciable

The Court cannot impose timelines on the President either.

8. No Scenario Where a Bill Becomes Law Without Governor’s Assent

The Court explicitly ruled that deemed assent is unconstitutional.

News7 Tamil’s Claim Is the Exact Opposite of the Verdict

News7 Tamil’s assertion that the Supreme Court “sent back” the reference and “dismissed the questions” is completely contradicted by the ruling itself. The Court accepted the reference, answered all 14 questions in detail, gave authoritative constitutional interpretation.

The Court did not return anything to the President.

News7 Tamil’s claim that the Court said the questions were “unnecessary” is demonstrably false. The Court in fact said the questions raised important constitutional issues requiring clarification.

Background: Why the Reference Was Made

The reference was issued in May 2025 after a previous Supreme Court bench attempted to set timelines for Governors in the Tamil Nadu Bills case. The Union Government opposed timelines; several states favoured them.

The Constitution Bench has now settled the issue, balancing the executive’s discretion with limited judicial supervision to prevent abuse.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Clarifies President, Governor’s Assent Powers; News7 Tamil Falsely Claims Court ‘Returned’ Presidential Reference appeared first on The Commune.

In a landmark opinion on a Presidential Reference, the Supreme Court of India has unanimously held that it cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. The court also decisively rejected the concept of “deemed assent,” calling it a judicial takeover of executive functions and “antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.”

The ruling was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and AS Chandurkar. The bench was answering a reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution, seeking the court’s opinion on key questions regarding the assent process for Bills.

Core Ruling: No Timelines, No Deemed Assent

The court firmly stated that prescribing fixed timelines for constitutional authorities like the Governor and President would violate the “elasticity” deliberately built into the Constitution.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that deemed consent of the Governor, or President, under Article 200 or 201 at the expiry of a judicially set timeline, is virtually a takeover, and substitution, of the executive functions by the Judiciary, through judicial pronouncement, which is impermissible within the contours of our written Constitution,” the Court held.

The court clarified that the powers under Article 142 cannot be used to create a concept of “deemed assent” or to substitute the decisions of the President or Governor.

Limited Judicial Power in Cases of “Prolonged Delay”

While rejecting fixed timelines, the court carved out a crucial exception. It held that in cases of “prolonged or unexplained delay” by a Governor that “frustrates the legislative process,” the judiciary can intervene.

The Court can issue a “limited mandamus” to direct the Governor to decide on the Bill within a reasonable time. However, the court explicitly stated it cannot comment on the merits of the Bill or how the discretion should be exercised.

Key Questions Answered by the Supreme Court

The court provided definitive answers to the 14 questions posed in the Presidential Reference.

The Court clarified that when a Bill is presented under Article 200, the Governor has three constitutional options: to assent to the Bill, to withhold assent, or to reserve it for the consideration of the President. Crucially, the Court held that the power to withhold assent is not a standalone option but must necessarily be accompanied by the Governor returning the Bill to the State Legislative Assembly for reconsideration, as mandated by the first proviso to Article 200. Permitting the Governor to withhold a Bill without returning it, the Court reasoned, would undermine the principles of federalism.

On the critical question of whether the Governor is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, the Court ruled that while the Governor typically acts on such advice, they exercise personal discretion under Article 200. This discretion is evident from the use of the phrase “in his opinion” in the second proviso, which grants the Governor the power to return a Bill or reserve it for the President’s consideration independently.

Regarding the justiciability of the Governor’s actions, the Court established that the merits of the Governor’s decision under Article 200 are not subject to judicial review. However, in cases of “prolonged, unexplained and indefinite” inaction that frustrates the legislative process, the judiciary can intervene by issuing a limited mandamus. This directive would compel the Governor to discharge their constitutional functions within a reasonable time, without, however, commenting on the merits of the decision itself.

Addressing the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361, the Court stated that while this provision is an absolute bar on legal proceedings against the Governor personally, it cannot be used to shield the office of the Governor from the Court’s jurisdiction in cases of prolonged inaction. Thus, the Court retains the power to issue writs to the office of the Governor to enforce constitutional duties.

On the contentious issue of imposing timelines, the Court decisively ruled that neither the Governor under Article 200 nor the President under Article 201 can be bound by judicially prescribed deadlines. The Court reasoned that the constitutional text was deliberately framed with a “sense of elasticity” to allow these authorities to perform their functions in diverse contexts. Imposing fixed timelines would be contrary to this constitutional design. Consequently, the President’s decision on a Bill reserved for their consideration is also non-justiciable.

The Court further opined that the President is not required to seek the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved by a Governor. The President’s subjective satisfaction is sufficient, though a reference may be made in cases lacking clarity.

Emphatically rejecting the concept of “deemed assent,” the Court stated that the exercise of constitutional powers by the President or Governor cannot be substituted by the judiciary under Article 142 of the Constitution. There is no scenario, the Court clarified, where a Bill passed by a State Legislature can become law without the Governor’s assent under Article 200, as the Governor’s role in the legislative process cannot be supplanted.

Finally, the Court affirmed that the decisions of the Governor and President on Bills are not justiciable before a law comes into force, and courts cannot adjudicate the contents of a Bill prior to its enactment.

Background and Context

The Presidential Reference was made in May 2025, shortly after a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, had laid down timelines for Governors to act on Bills. The reference sought to clarify the constitutional position, raising 14 specific queries.

During the extensive hearings, the Union Government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued against judicially imposed timelines. SG Mehta contended that while Governors cannot “indefinitely sit on bills,” courts cannot lay down a “straitjacket timeline,” as it would violate the separation of powers.

Several states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, and Punjab, argued in favor of timelines and judicial intervention to prevent gubernatorial obstruction. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, K.K. Venugopal, Gopal Subramanium, and Arvind P. Datar presented these arguments. Conversely, states like Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, represented by Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mahesh Jethmalani, supported the Union’s position.

The Supreme Court’s opinion now provides an authoritative interpretation, balancing the discretion of constitutional authorities with the judiciary’s role as a guardian against arbitrary inaction, thereby settling a significant federal debate in the Indian polity.

(Source: LiveLaw)

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Says It Can’t Fix Timelines For Governor And President To Grant Assent To Bills appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court on Friday, 17 October 2025, deferred the hearing of the writ petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu challenging the Governor’s decision to reserve two state Bills — the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025, and the Sports University Bill — for the consideration of the President of India.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran suggested that the State government wait for the outcome of the Presidential Reference currently pending before a Constitution Bench. The reference concerns the timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and Governors under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

CJI Gavai observed, “You have to wait hardly for 4 weeks, the reference has to be decided before 21st (November),” while addressing Senior Advocate Dr. A. M. Singhvi, who was appearing for Tamil Nadu. The Chief Justice is scheduled to retire on 23 November 2025.

State Challenges Governor’s Action

The Tamil Nadu government filed the writ petition questioning the Governor’s decision to withhold assent to two state Bills and refer them to the President of India.

The first, the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025, seeks to establish a university that would designate Chief Minister MK Stalin as its first Vice-Chancellor. The second, the Sports University Bill, proposes to amend the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act, empowering the state government to appoint or remove vice-chancellors.

Senior Advocates Dr. A. M. Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi appeared on behalf of Tamil Nadu, with AOR Misha Rohatgi assisting in filing the plea.

“Governor Cannot Act Like a Judge”

Arguing for the State, Dr. Singhvi contended that the Governor had no authority to assess the contents of a Bill as if adjudicating it judicially. He submitted, “He (the Governor) cannot refer to the President, the issue of repugnancy.”

Supporting this, Rohatgi remarked, “The question today is, can the Governor examine every clause like a judge and say — it’s repugnant?”

Centre Defends Governor’s Authority

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, defended the Governor’s role, asserting that the act of examining Bills and referring them to the President formed part of the Governor’s constitutional duty.

He pointed out that between 2015 and 2025, Governors across India had made 381 references to the President of India. He cautioned that if every such reference were to be challenged, it would overwhelm the judiciary.

“If this is to be justiciable, my lords will have two separate benches permanently for deciding,” he submitted.

Responding to the State’s arguments, Mehta said, “The Governor (position) is doing it since independence; that is his job.”

Linked to Pending Constitutional Clarification

The present case is closely tied to the pending Presidential Reference before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by the Chief Justice of India. The reference seeks the Court’s opinion on the scope of Articles 200 and 201, following a two-judge bench’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, which had set timelines for constitutional authorities to act on Bills.

That opinion was reserved on 11 September 2025, and the Supreme Court indicated that it expects a decision by 21 November 2025, before the Chief Justice’s retirement.

Until then, the Tamil Nadu government’s plea will remain pending, as the Court signaled that the outcome of the Presidential Reference will directly affect the present petition.

(Source: LiveLaw)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Supreme Court Defers TN Govt’s Plea Against Governor’s Decision To Reserve Bills For President appeared first on The Commune.

(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.

The post Madras High Court Knocks On The Head Of DMK MP And Counsel P. Wilson In Case On Governor’s Role In VC Appointments appeared first on The Commune.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post President Murmu Invokes Article 143 To Challenge Supreme Court’s Ruling On President & Governor’s Assent To Bills appeared first on The Commune.

The Supreme Court’s latest verdict, imposing a three-month deadline for presidential assent to state bills, marks a watershed moment in India’s constitutional history—not for its legal brilliance, but for its breathtaking hypocrisy. The same institution that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) in 2015, citing the sacred principle of judicial independence, has now audaciously encroached upon the executive’s constitutional domain. Is this the message the judiciary of this country wants to send – When it comes to the judiciary’s powers, even parliamentary amendments are unacceptable; but when it comes to others’ powers, even constitutional silence is no barrier.

Two Sets Of Rules

To understand the magnitude of what the Court has done, it helps to recall a moment from a decade ago. In 2015, the same Supreme Court struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), a constitutional amendment passed by near unanimity in Parliament and ratified by over 20 states. The NJAC proposed a modest reform: allowing a committee comprising judges, the law minister, and two eminent citizens to select judges—replacing the opaque collegium system.

The court’s logic? Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution. And allowing the executive even a token role in appointments would compromise that independence. So the NJAC was thrown out. The will of the people’s representatives—expressed through Parliament and state legislatures—was set aside by five unelected judges.

In that case, constitutional morality meant that the judiciary must be shielded from any influence, even from elected bodies. “Trust no one,” the court seemed to say—least of all the executive or legislature.

Now cut to 2024. In the Tamil Nadu case, the very same court holds that the inaction of a Governor can be cured by the judiciary taking over his function. No need to wait for the President’s consideration. No need to follow Article 200 or 201, which prescribe the routes for state legislation. Instead, the court invokes its Article 142 powers to declare the bills as assented—bypassing the entire constitutional mechanism.

So here’s the contradiction: When Parliament and states tried to reform judicial appointments via constitutional amendment, the court shut it down. But when the judiciary decides to reform executive inaction through judicial decree, it calls that democracy.

Article 142: From Safety Valve To Judicial Override

Article 142 was designed as an exceptional power to ensure “complete justice” in extraordinary cases. But in recent years, the Supreme Court has weaponized it to:

• Override statutory processes (like in the Tamil Nadu case)
• Legislate policy (as seen in environmental and electoral rulings)
• Micromanage executive functions (now extending to the President’s office)

The Tamil Nadu verdict stretches Article 142 beyond recognition. If the Court can use it to force bills into law, what stops it from using it to annul laws it dislikes? If it can impose deadlines on the President, what stops it from directing the Prime Minister next?

This isn’t constitutional interpretation—it’s constitutional takeover.

The Ambedkarian Irony

In its judgment, the Court invoked B.R. Ambedkar, claiming that constitutional morality demanded upholding the supremacy of elected legislatures. But this is selective Ambedkarism.

Ambedkar was a legalist to the core. He insisted on procedure, on discipline, on constitutional channels. He was no fan of arbitrary Governors—but he also never imagined the judiciary would take over their functions. In fact, his vision required that no organ of the state act outside its sphere.

What we have today is a court that quotes Ambedkar to do exactly what Ambedkar warned against: substituting its wisdom for constitutional procedure.

Judicial Overreach Masquerading As Constitutional Morality

The Court’s reasoning in the Tamil Nadu case is riddled with contradictions:

On Delays: The Court condemns the Governor for sitting on bills indefinitely, yet it has presided over a judicial system where cases languish for decades. If delays are unconstitutional for the executive, why are they acceptable for the judiciary?

On Discretion: The Court insists that Governors must act on the “aid and advice” of state cabinets, yet it fiercely guards the Collegium’s absolute discretion in judicial appointments. If executive discretion is suspect, why is judicial discretion sacrosanct?

On Accountability: The Court demands transparency from Governors and the President but refuses to subject its own opaque Collegium system to public scrutiny.

This selective application of constitutional principles exposes an unsettling truth: The Supreme Court no longer sees itself as an interpreter of the Constitution but as its supreme arbiter—free to restrain others while remaining unrestrained itself.

Governor’s Powers Granted By Constitution

India’s Constitution provides checks and balances for a reason. Article 200 allows a Governor to give assent, withhold assent, return a bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President. Article 201 specifies what happens when a bill is reserved. None of these provisions allow the judiciary to step in and say, “Time’s up—this bill is now law.”

Yet that is precisely what the Court has done.

The justices argued that “constitutional functionaries cannot frustrate the will of the legislature.” That is true. But is it then acceptable for the judiciary to override a constitutional functionary, rather than compel him to act according to law?

What happens now when the President reserves a bill and delays it? Can the court step in and grant deemed assent again? Will we see High Courts doing the same for Governors in other states? And what of the central government—can it too be bypassed by court order when it fails to act?

Where does this end?

The Real Threat: Judicial Supremacy Over Democracy

The Court’s latest ruling sets a dangerous precedent. If it can impose deadlines on the President, what stops it from micromanaging other executive functions? If it can “deem” bills as passed despite gubernatorial inaction, what stops it from rewriting legislation altogether? The Constitution envisions a delicate balance of power, but the Court is tilting the scales in its favor—transforming India from a parliamentary democracy into a judicial oligarchy.

Worse, this overreach comes at a time when the judiciary’s own credibility is under scrutiny. The Collegium system remains a black box of favoritism and inefficiency. Judicial vacancies pile up while the Court lectures others on timely decision-making. The same judges who resist even minor executive oversight now feel entitled to oversee the executive.

The Dangerous Road Ahead

This judicial overreach creates three fundamental dangers:

First, it undermines democracy itself. When unelected judges routinely override elected governments, we cease to be a representative democracy and become a judicial oligarchy.

Second, it makes the judiciary a political actor. By inserting itself into governance, the Court invites the very politicization it claims to abhor.

Third, it sets impossible standards. The Court demands perfect functioning from other institutions while its own house remains in disorder – from case backlogs to controversial appointments.

The Bigger Question: Do We Need Governors Or Presidents Anymore?

If the Supreme Court can:

1. Override gubernatorial vetoes
2. Direct the President’s decision-making
3. Legislate through “deemed assent”

…then what’s the point of having these offices at all? Why not just let the Supreme Court govern directly?

With due respect to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the verdict reopens a critical debate on the balance between constitutional procedure and democratic will.

As the legislative-executive-judicial relationship evolves, the question remains:
 
Should the will of an elected Assembly be… pic.twitter.com/0QLFYAp4EI

— S Sundar Raman (@ssundarraman) April 12, 2025

This isn’t just about Tamil Nadu—it’s about whether India still has separation of powers or just judicial supremacy.

Who Will Judge The Judges?

India’s founding fathers created an independent judiciary to protect democracy, not to supplant it. Yet today, we face the ironic situation where the institution meant to safeguard our Constitution has become its most aggressive reinterpretor.

The Supreme Court would do well to remember: True judicial greatness lies in knowing the limits of judicial power. Before it demands accountability from others, it must first submit to accountability itself.

For when the guardians become the rulers, democracy becomes a mere pretense. And that is a fate no Constitution can survive.

Parliament must seriously reconsider the NJAC or similar reforms to restore balance in judicial appointments. The executive must push back against judicial encroachment. And the public must ask: Who guards the guardians?

Hydra is a freelance writer and a columnist. 

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post The Judiciary’s Dangerous Double Standard: Protecting Its Own Power While Usurping Others’ appeared first on The Commune.

The ruling DMK government is under heavy criticism as it enters the second year in a row of political tensions with the Governor of Tamil Nadu, especially after he walked out of the Assembly for not playing the National Anthem, even though it is a legal requirement under the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). While the Dravidianist media continues to echo the ruling party’s narrative, political leaders across the state have sharply criticized the government’s actions.

They accuse the DMK of blatant hypocrisy, pointing out that while it boasts itself as the guardian of the constitution and the law, it fails to uphold these very principles. The latest controversy stems from the Governor walking out of the Assembly after the mandated National Anthem was not played at the beginning and end of the session. Critics argue that the DMK’s ongoing political game with the Governor undermines the rule of law and constitutional decorum, exposing their double standards.

While the Dravidianist media focuses on the narrative of the Governor walking out, the Chief Minister’s social media post criticism, and statements from DMK leaders, another crucial reality is being willfully ignored by these outlets. Playing the National Anthem at the beginning and end of an Assembly session is not a mere formality, but a legal requirement under the SOP related to the National Anthem. This important detail is conveniently overlooked in the media’s coverage of the ongoing controversy.

The official orders regarding the National Anthem of India states, “The National Anthem is to be played or sung on various occasions. Instructions have been issued over time about the correct versions of the Anthem, the occasions on which it should be played or sung, and the importance of showing respect through proper decorum during such instances.” Specifically, it is mandatory for the National Anthem to be played “on the arrival of the Governor/Lieutenant Governor at formal state functions within his State/Union Territory, and upon his departure from such functions.” These instructions underline the formal and legal obligation to play the Anthem at designated times, a requirement that cannot be overlooked.

It is clear that the National Anthem should be sung on the arrival and departure of Governer. pic.twitter.com/jzBkFWHeUV

— H Raja (@HRajaBJP) January 6, 2025

In this context, Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai has strongly criticized the DMK for playing politics with the National Anthem and the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Taking to his official X account, he called out the hypocrisy of the ruling DMK government, Annamalai pointed out that Tamil Thai Vazhthu was never recited before the Governor’s Address in Tamil Nadu’s State Assembly till 1991. 

From the Assembly records, of July 1991 show that when Jayalalithaa was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Tamizh Thai Vazthu and the National Anthem were played at the commencement and the end of the Governor’s address respectively, for the first time.

It has become customary for the DMK Government to divert the public anger caused by their misgovernance & Goondaism and blame the Hon. Governor of TN for pointing out the rules that must be followed. Today, our Hon. Governor of TN, after the Tamizh Thai Vazhthu had asked for the… pic.twitter.com/WcSM6Ba9Hq

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) January 6, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Here’s What Official Documents Say About Playing Of National Anthem In TN Assembly appeared first on The Commune.

In yet another display of selective outrage and ill-informed commentary, a leftist scribe who is also a DMK-buttressing alleged journalist, Arvind Gunasekar, weighed in on the controversy surrounding Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi’s walkout from the Assembly over not playing the national anthem on 6 January 2025. Instead of shedding light on the issue, Gunasekar’s statements reveal a glaring lack of understanding about constitutional hierarchy, protocol, and history. Let’s dissect his claims and expose the underlying ignorance.

What Happened

The controversy began when the Tamil Nadu Assembly, following its usual practice, sang the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu (the Tamil Nadu state song) at the start of the session. However, the National Anthem was conspicuously omitted at the beginning and only scheduled for the end, contrary to established protocol.

Governor RN Ravi, citing this as disrespect to the National Anthem, walked out in protest after his request for adherence to constitutional propriety was ignored.

In a statement on the official X handle, the Governor’s office wrote, “The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end of Governor’s address. Today on arrival of Governor to the House only Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu was sung. Governor respectfully reminded the House of its Constitutional Duty. He fervently appealed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister who is the Leader of the House and the Hon’ble Speaker for singing the National Anthem. However, they cussedly refused. It is a matter of grave concern. Not to be a party to such brazen disrespect to the Constitution and the National Anthem, Governor in deep anguish left the House.”

The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end…

— RAJ BHAVAN, TAMIL NADU (@rajbhavan_tn) January 6, 2025

Rather than addressing this blatant disregard for protocol, Gunasekar attempted to mislead his audience with half-baked arguments and a complete distortion of facts.

Gunasekar’s Absurd Claims

Like a true foot soldier of the ruling DMK, Arvind Gunasekar tried to chime in with his “expertise” stating, “Speaker is the sole custodian of the Assembly, not the Governor. Tamil Nadu Assembly did not say that it will not sing National Anthem, instead, ‘Tamil Thai Vaazhthu’ was sung in the beginning and National Anthem at the end. This has been the usual practice in the State. Both the State song and National Anthem were given due respect. Governor taking exception to the State Song being sung in the beginning is nothing but a ruse, Governor wanted to boycott the customary address prepared by the State Government. Our Constitution rests the power on the elected, not the nominated Governors. Governor cannot prepare his / her own speech to deliver in the Assembly. Another unwarranted confrontation by TN Governor.”

Speaker is the sole custodian of the Assembly, not the Governor.

Tamil Nadu Assembly did not say that it will not sing National Anthem, instead, ‘Tamil Thai Vaazhthu’ was sung in the beginning and National Anthem at the end. This has been the usual practice in the State.

Both…

— Arvind Gunasekar (@arvindgunasekar) January 6, 2025

For a “journalist” who is a JNU alum (as per his X bio), we thought we would school him on the facts. Here are the statements made by Arvind Gunasekar and their rebuttals.

“Speaker is the sole custodian of the Assembly, not the Governor.”

Gunasekar conveniently overlooks the fact that the Governor represents the Union and is the constitutional head of the state. While the Speaker presides over Assembly proceedings, it is the Governor who inaugurates sessions with a customary address and ensures adherence to constitutional principles.

By dismissing the Governor’s role, Gunasekar displays his ignorance of the delicate balance of power between elected representatives and constitutional authorities.

“Tamil Nadu Assembly did not say it will not sing the National Anthem; instead, both songs were sung.”

This is a red herring. The issue is not the inclusion of Tamil Thai Vaazhthu but the deliberate omission of the National Anthem at the beginning, as mandated by protocol.

The Governor did not object to the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu but merely reminded the Assembly of its duty to respect the National Anthem. Gunasekar’s attempt to paint this as an attack on Tamil identity is both dishonest and divisive.

“Our Constitution rests the power on the elected, not the nominated Governors.”

While Governors are appointed, their authority stems directly from the Constitution, making them an integral part of the state machinery. Gunasekar’s assertion trivializes the role of Governors, who act as custodians of the Constitution and ensure that state governments do not overstep their bounds.

“The Governor wanted to boycott the customary address.”

Far from boycotting, the Governor was compelled to leave because his repeated requests for protocol adherence were ignored. This walkout was a principled stand against a state government intent on undermining national symbols.

The Historical Context Gunasekar Ignored

In his eagerness to defend the Tamil Nadu government, Gunasekar conveniently omits crucial historical facts:

The National Anthem Protocol

The tradition of singing the National Anthem at both the beginning and end of Assembly sessions is not new. It is a long-standing practice in legislatures across the country, reflecting respect for the nation and its Constitution.

The Introduction of Tamil Thai Vaazhthu

Contrary to Gunasekar’s implication, the Tamil Thai Vaazhthu was not always part of Assembly proceedings. It was introduced in 1991 by the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, making it a relatively recent addition. While the state song is a cherished tradition, it cannot replace or supersede the National Anthem.

It has become customary for the DMK Government to divert the public anger caused by their misgovernance & Goondaism and blame the Hon. Governor of TN for pointing out the rules that must be followed. Today, our Hon. Governor of TN, after the Tamizh Thai Vazhthu had asked for the… pic.twitter.com/WcSM6Ba9Hq

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) January 6, 2025

Repeated Disrespect by the DMK Government

The DMK-led government has consistently ignored the Governor’s requests to include the National Anthem, from 2022 to the present day. This pattern of defiance underscores a deliberate agenda rather than an oversight.

Gunasekar’s Selective Outrage

Gunasekar’s commentary reeks of selective outrage and intellectual dishonesty. His attempt to frame the Governor’s protest as an attack on Tamil identity is not only baseless but also divisive. By conflating respect for the National Anthem with an alleged disdain for Tamil culture, Gunasekar exposes his bias and inability to engage with facts.

Moreover, his silence on the DMK government’s repeated disregard for national symbols is telling. Had a similar incident occurred in another context, one wonders if his response would have been as dismissive.

Arvind Gunasekar’s ill-informed tirade is emblematic of a broader trend among certain commentators who prioritize ideological loyalty over truth. In this case, he has chosen to defend a government that blatantly disrespects national symbols, all while misrepresenting the facts and undermining the constitutional role of the Governor.

The Tamil Nadu Assembly’s repeated disregard for the National Anthem is not a trivial issue. It strikes at the very heart of our constitutional values and national identity. As a journalist, Gunasekar should have upheld these principles instead of pandering to partisan agendas.

Unfortunately, his ignorance and bias only serve to deepen divisions and distract from the real issues at hand. For someone who claims to champion progressive values, it is ironic that Gunasekar’s words betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution he pretends to defend.

The respect accorded to the National Anthem is not optional—it is a duty enshrined in the Constitution. Any attempt to undermine this principle, whether by state governments or journalists like Arvind Gunasekar, must be called out and condemned unequivocally.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Alleged Journo & DMK Buttresser Arvind Gunasekar Twists Facts To Defend DMK Govt Not Following SOP Of National Anthem, Exposes Constitutional Ignorance appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi walked out of the state assembly on Monday, 6 January 2025, after the National Anthem was not played following the recitation of the Tamil Thai Vazhthu (state song) at the commencement of the session.

Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi left the Assembly without delivering his customary address, citing the absence of the National Anthem after the Tamil Thai Vazhthu as the reason. Despite his insistence, the National Anthem was not played, prompting his departure just three minutes into the session.

In a statement on the official X handle, the Governor’s office wrote, “The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end of Governor’s address. Today on arrival of Governor to the House only Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu was sung. Governor respectfully reminded the House of its Constitutional Duty. He fervently appealed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister who is the Leader of the House and the Hon’ble Speaker for singing the National Anthem. However, they cussedly refused. It is a matter of grave concern. Not to be a party to such brazen disrespect to the Constitution and the National Anthem, Governor in deep anguish left the House.”

The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end…

— RAJ BHAVAN, TAMIL NADU (@rajbhavan_tn) January 6, 2025

Not The First Time

The issue of not playing the National Anthem in the Tamil Nadu Assembly has been a recurring point of contention between the Governor and the state government. On multiple occasions, Governor R.N. Ravi has expressed his disappointment over the failure to include the National Anthem at the beginning and end of Assembly sessions.

2024

During the first session of 2024, the Governor noted with regret that his repeated requests to play the anthem were ignored. He refused to read the address prepared by the state government, citing strong disagreements on factual and moral grounds. Instead, he concluded his brief address with wishes for productive discussions and respect for Tamil Nadu and India.

2023

This pattern was also evident during the 2023 winter session, where Raj Bhavan requested changes to the Governor’s speech, including respect for the National Anthem. However, the state government did not respond. The session saw protests from DMK allies, who disrupted the Governor’s speech with slogans and demonstrations, further straining relations.

2022

In 2022, Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi revealed that the DMK government refused to play the National Anthem in the Assembly, despite his insistence. Before his first address to the Assembly that year, Governor Ravi was informed that the National Anthem was not part of the session’s proceedings. He explicitly requested that it be played at the beginning and end of the session, alongside the Tamil Thai Vazhthu. The request was communicated to Speaker Appavu and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, and the Governor even sent a formal letter reiterating his appeal. However, the National Anthem was not played, disregarding the Governor’s insistence.

Annamalai Slams DMK

BJP Tamil Nadu President K. Annamalai accused the ruling DMK government of deliberately disrespecting established protocols and diverting attention from governance failures.

In his statement, Annamalai highlighted the history of the Tamil Thai Vazhthu, noting that the edited version by Manonmaniam Sundaranar Pillai was officially declared the state song in 1970 by former Chief Minister Karunanidhi. However, the practice of reciting it before the Governor’s address in the assembly only began in 1991 under the late Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa. During her tenure, the Tamil Thai Vazhthu was followed by the National Anthem at the commencement and conclusion of the Governor’s address.

Annamalai pointed out that, as per the Government of India’s orders and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act of 1971, the National Anthem must be played at formal state functions involving the Governor. He accused the DMK government of ignoring these established procedures, which he argued was an insult to the Governor and a violation of protocol.

“We kindly request TN CM Thiru @mkstalin to focus his energy on delivering justice for the victim who was sexually assaulted at Anna University and not divert the people’s attention. The Honourable Governor of TN, Thiru RN Ravi avl, is only asking the TN Government to follow the laid down rules & procedures, and we do not think it is a tall ask.” Annamalai stated.

It has become customary for the DMK Government to divert the public anger caused by their misgovernance & Goondaism and blame the Hon. Governor of TN for pointing out the rules that must be followed. Today, our Hon. Governor of TN, after the Tamizh Thai Vazhthu had asked for the… pic.twitter.com/WcSM6Ba9Hq

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) January 6, 2025

The BJP leader’s remarks come amidst mounting criticism of the DMK government for its handling of recent controversies, including allegations of misgovernance and lawlessness.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post ‘Follow Laid Down Rules’: BJP TN Chief Annamalai Slams DMK For National Anthem Row, Says Stalin Diverting From Anna University Sexual Assault Case appeared first on The Commune.

Yet another instance of disrespect to the national anthem occurred at the Tamil Nadu Assembly today with Governor RN Ravi walking out over this issue on 6 January 2024.

Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi left the Assembly without delivering his customary address, citing the absence of the National Anthem after the Tamil Thai Vazhthu as the reason. Despite his insistence, the National Anthem was not played, prompting his departure just three minutes into the session.

In a statement on the official X handle, the Governor’s office wrote, “The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end of Governor’s address. Today on arrival of Governor to the House only Tamil Thaai Vaazhthu was sung. Governor respectfully reminded the House of its Constitutional Duty. He fervently appealed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister who is the Leader of the House and the Hon’ble Speaker for singing the National Anthem. However, they cussedly refused. It is a matter of grave concern. Not to be a party to such brazen disrespect to the Constitution and the National Anthem, Governor in deep anguish left the House.”

The Constitution of Bharat and the National Anthem were once again insulted in the Tamil Nadu Assembly today. Respecting the National Anthem is among the first Fundamental Duty as enshrined in our Constitution. It is sung in all the state legislatures at the beginning and the end…

— RAJ BHAVAN, TAMIL NADU (@rajbhavan_tn) January 6, 2025

Following the Governor’s departure, Speaker M. Appavu read out the Governor’s speech. The session saw further disruptions, with AIADMK members holding placards and raising slogans demanding justice for a student sexually assaulted at Anna University. Congress members staged a walkout in protest against the Governor’s actions.

Not The First Time

The issue of not playing the National Anthem in the Tamil Nadu Assembly has been a recurring point of contention between the Governor and the state government. On multiple occasions, Governor R.N. Ravi has expressed his disappointment over the failure to include the National Anthem at the beginning and end of Assembly sessions.

2024

During the first session of 2024, the Governor noted with regret that his repeated requests to play the anthem were ignored. He refused to read the address prepared by the state government, citing strong disagreements on factual and moral grounds. Instead, he concluded his brief address with wishes for productive discussions and respect for Tamil Nadu and India.

2023

This pattern was also evident during the 2023 winter session, where Raj Bhavan requested changes to the Governor’s speech, including respect for the National Anthem. However, the state government did not respond. The session saw protests from DMK allies, who disrupted the Governor’s speech with slogans and demonstrations, further straining relations.

2022

In 2022, Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi revealed that the DMK government refused to play the National Anthem in the Assembly, despite his insistence. Before his first address to the Assembly that year, Governor Ravi was informed that the National Anthem was not part of the session’s proceedings. He explicitly requested that it be played at the beginning and end of the session, alongside the Tamil Thai Vazhthu. The request was communicated to Speaker Appavu and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, and the Governor even sent a formal letter reiterating his appeal. However, the National Anthem was not played, disregarding the Governor’s insistence.

(With inputs from The Hindu)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post National Anthem Insulted Again By Not Playing In TN Assembly Alleges TN Guv RN Ravi, Walks Out Without Reading Address; Fourth Such Incident Since 2022 appeared first on The Commune.