NEW DELHI: After Kerala, the Tamil Nadu government on Monday also filed a plea in the Supreme Court requesting the return of the Presidential Reference on the grounds that the reference was “headless and devoid of merits”.
“The reference has been issued to overrule the decision and directions of this Court in the State of Tamil Nadu judgment, and it is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law as this Court has no power to overrule its own judgements by way of Article 143,” the application, settled by senior advocate P. Wilson, said.
Seeking a direction from the top court to reject the Presidential Reference, the TN government stated that no review or curative petition had been preferred by the Governor of Tamil Nadu against the judgement of this Court in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of TN.
“The Presidential Reference is nothing but an attempt to disturb the settled law and overrule the findings already pronounced by this Court, which is impermissible under Article 143 of the Constitution,” the TN government submitted in its 13-page application, a copy of which was accessed by The New Indian Express.
The apex court's five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar, is expected to hear the Presidential Reference case on Tuesday, July 29.
Calling the reference “headless and devoid of merits,” the TN government argued that the Presidential Reference of 13 May 2025 raised questions of law concerning the interpretation of the powers of the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution and the powers of the President under Article 201 of the Constitution, along with ancillary issues, which have already been directly answered by the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) in an exhaustive manner.
The state also referred to the Court's opinion in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society vs. State of Gujarat (1974), which held that an opinion rendered by this Court in a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution is advisory in nature and not binding in subsequent cases, although it carries great persuasive value.
“Therefore, the present Presidential Reference is headless and devoid of merit,” the TN government submitted.
It further stated that the reference no longer raised any legitimate substantial questions of law warranting the Court's opinion.
Earlier on 22 July, the Supreme Court had agreed to examine President Droupadi Murmu’s reference containing 14 questions concerning the timelines prescribed by the Court to State Governors and the President while dealing with bills passed by the Assembly.
The Constitution Bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, during a brief hearing on 22 July, issued notice to the Centre and all states, seeking their detailed responses by 29 July on the Presidential Reference, which asked whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by the Assembly. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 29 August.
The CJI-led bench also made it clear that the Court would seek the help and assistance of the Attorney General (AG), the Centre’s top law officer, R. Venkataramani, in the matter.
The apex court also said it would examine whether the exercise of discretion by Governors and the President on bills can be subjected to judicially enforceable timelines.
Earlier, on 8 April, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Governor of Tamil Nadu, held that a Governor must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a bill, and within one month when a bill is re-enacted.
The Court, in that case, invoked its rarely used powers under Article 142 and declared that prolonged inaction by the Governor was “illegal”. It also directed that the ten pending bills from Tamil Nadu be deemed to have received assent.
Challenging this verdict, President Droupadi Murmu moved the top court on 13 May, raising 14 crucial questions in a Presidential Reference challenging the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict, which had fixed timelines for Governors and the President to act on bills passed by State Assemblies.
Exercising her powers under the rarely invoked Article 143(1), President Murmu stated that the 14 questions of law arising in the present circumstances were of such nature and public importance that it was expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Among the 14 questions raised in the Presidential Reference, the most significant were:
What are the constitutional options before a Governor when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?
Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all options available with him when a Bill is presented under Article 200 of the Constitution?
Is the exercise of constitutional discretion by the Governor under Article 200 of the Constitution justiciable?
Is Article 361 of the Constitution an absolute bar to judicial review in relation to the actions of a Governor under Article 200?
In the absence of a constitutionally prescribed time limit and manner of exercising powers by the Governor, can timelines be imposed and the manner of exercise be prescribed through judicial orders for all powers exercised under Article 200 of the Constitution?
