☀️ Our fight for State rights and true federalism will continue! ☀️ No rest until amending the Constitution to fix timelines for Governors...
In an English-language statement, M.K. Stalin said the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on the Presidential Reference does not affect Tamil Nadu's April 8, 2025 court win against the Governor over delayed Bills. He said the Court reaffirmed that elected governments must run administration, Governors cannot exercise a pocket veto or indefinitely delay Bills, and vowed to continue the fight for state rights and true federalism.
M.K.Stalin@mkstalinOriginal post
☀️ Our fight for State rights and true federalism will continue!
☀️ No rest until amending the Constitution to fix timelines for Governors to clear Bills!
The Supreme Court’s opinion in its answer to the Presidential Reference will have no impact on the April 8, 2025 judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu.
In fact, the Bench tendering the advisory opinion has reaffirmed that: 1️⃣ The elected government should be in the driver’s seat, and there cannot be two executive power centres in the State. 2️⃣ Constitutional functionaries must act within the constitutional framework — never above it. 3️⃣ The Governor has no fourth option to kill the Bill or exercise a pocket veto (as was done by the TN Governor). He has no option to withhold the Bill simpliciter. 4️⃣ The Governor cannot indefinitely delay acting on Bills. In cases of prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite delay by the Governor in considering a Bill, States can approach the Constitutional Courts and hold Governors accountable for their deliberate inactions.
The 9-Judge Bench in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 (Para 109) clearly held:
“Advisory opinion of the Court would have no more effect than the opinion of the law officers.”
The Supreme Court’s opinion yesterday has again rejected the Tamil Nadu Governor’s (a) theory of pocket veto, (b) assertion that Bills can be killed or buried by the Raj Bhavan.
Through our legal battle, we have now compelled Governors, including the Tamil Nadu Governor, who are at odds with the elected government across the country, to work in line with the elected government and be accountable for their deliberate inaction in response to the people’s will through legislation. It has also empowered Constitutional Courts to review their actions if they obstruct the passage of Bills indefinitely, and they cannot hide behind Article 361.
I believe that no constitutional authority can claim to be above the Constitution. When even a high Constitutional Authority breaches the Constitution, the Constitutional Courts are the only remedy, and the doors of the Court must not be closed. This would undermine the rule of law in our constitutional democracy and encourage breaches of the Constitution by Governors acting with political intent.
I have promises to keep, and until our people’s will in Tamil Nadu is fulfilled through legislation, we will ensure that every constitutional apparatus functions in this country in accordance with the Constitution.
#StateRights #TrueFederalism #SupremeCourt #Constitution
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin published an English statement on the Supreme Court's advisory opinion responding to a Presidential Reference on Governors' powers over state Bills. He said the opinion does not alter the outcome of the April 8, 2025 judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu, a case his government had won. Stalin listed four points he said the Bench reaffirmed: elected governments, not Governors, must be in the driver's seat, since a state cannot have two executive power centres; constitutional functionaries must act within, never above, the constitutional framework; the Governor has no fourth option to kill a Bill via a pocket veto, as the Tamil Nadu Governor had done; and the Governor cannot indefinitely delay Bills, with states entitled to approach constitutional courts over prolonged, unexplained inaction. He cited the 1974 St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat ruling that an advisory opinion carries no more weight than a law officer's opinion. Stalin said the ruling compels Governors nationwide to act in line with elected governments and closed off hiding behind Article 361, vowing continued legal efforts until Tamil Nadu's legislative will is fulfilled.