Beyond the Headlines: Tamil Nadu’s Constitutional Challenge and the High-Stakes Tussle Over Gubernatorial Power 

Tamil Nadu has launched a forceful challenge in India’s Supreme Court against a Presidential Reference filed by President Droupadi Murmu, denouncing it as “headless and devoid of merits.” The Reference seeks the Court’s opinion on imposing timelines for Governors and the President to act on state bills – a direct response to the Court’s own landmark April 2023 ruling that mandated such deadlines after Tamil Nadu’s Governor withheld assent indefinitely.

TN argues the Reference is an impermissible “appeal in disguise” attempting to overrule a binding judicial decision, noting the Governor never formally challenged the original verdict. Kerala has filed a similar objection, framing it as federal overreach. A 5-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud will now determine whether judicial intervention in gubernatorial delays is lawful or violates constitutional separations of power. At stake is the balance between state legislative autonomy, executive discretion, and judicial authority in India’s democracy.

The outcome could redefine how Governors function nationwide.

Beyond the Headlines: Tamil Nadu’s Constitutional Challenge and the High-Stakes Tussle Over Gubernatorial Power 

The serene halls of India’s Supreme Court are set to become the arena for a profound constitutional battle this week. The Tamil Nadu government has launched a direct and forceful challenge against a Presidential Reference, escalating a simmering conflict over the powers of Governors and the limits of judicial intervention into a full-blown legal showdown. 

The Spark: A Court-Imposed Timeline 

The roots of this clash lie in a landmark Supreme Court ruling on April 8, 2025. Faced with prolonged inaction by the Tamil Nadu Governor on bills passed by the state legislature, a two-judge bench invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142. It declared that Governors must act within three months if withholding assent or reserving a bill, and within one month for re-enacted bills. Critically, it deemed the Governor’s delay “illegal” and effectively granted assent to ten pending TN bills itself. This decision sent shockwaves through Raj Bhavans nationwide. 

The Presidential Countermove: 14 Questions 

In response, President Droupadi Murmu, exercising the rarely used power under Article 143(1), filed a Presidential Reference on May 13, 2025. This reference posed 14 crucial questions to the Supreme Court, fundamentally challenging the April 8th verdict. Key among them: 

• Can judicially enforceable timelines be imposed on Governors (under Article 200) and the President (under Article 201) for dealing with bills? 

• Is the Governor bound by ministerial advice when exercising options under Article 200? 

• Is the Governor’s constitutional discretion under Article 200 justiciable at all? 

• Does Article 361 (granting immunity to the President/Governor) act as an absolute bar to judicial review of such actions? 

Essentially, the Reference questioned the judiciary’s authority to dictate how and when constitutional heads exercise their discretion on legislation. 

Tamil Nadu’s Scathing Rebuttal: “Headless and Devoid of Merits” 

Filing its application on July 28th, Tamil Nadu didn’t mince words. Its core arguments, settled by senior advocate P. Wilson, are a robust defense of judicial authority and a rejection of perceived overreach: 

• An “Appeal in Disguise”: TN contends the Reference is not a genuine query but a backdoor attempt to overrule the binding April 8th judgment. It argues the Supreme Court cannot overrule its own judgments via an advisory opinion under Article 143. “It is nothing but an appeal in disguise, which is impermissible in law.” 

• Settled Law Disturbed: The state argues the Reference raises questions already definitively answered by the Supreme Court in the TN Governor case. Reopening these issues is an attempt to “disturb the settled law.” 

• No Challenge from the Source: Crucially, TN points out that the Governor of Tamil Nadu himself never filed a review or curative petition challenging the April 8th verdict. The Presidential Reference, therefore, appears as an external intervention lacking direct standing. 

• Advisory Nature Limits Impact: TN cited the precedent in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society vs. State of Gujarat (1974), reminding the Court that opinions given under Article 143 are advisory and not legally binding on future cases, though persuasive. This, they argue, makes the whole exercise “headless and devoid of merits.” 

• No Legitimate Questions Remain: The state asserts that after the clear April 8th ruling, no substantial questions of law requiring the Court’s advisory opinion actually persist. 

Kerala’s Echo and the Stakes 

Tamil Nadu is not alone. The Kerala government had previously filed a similar plea, also labeling the Reference a potential “misuse of power.” This solidarity underscores the broader federal concern shared by states governed by opposition parties: the perceived use of Governors as instruments of delay or obstruction by the central government. 

What Happens Next: A Constitution Bench Decides 

The matter is now before a powerful 5-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The Bench has already issued notices to the Centre and all states, seeking their responses. The hearing scheduled for July 29th (today) is procedural, with the substantive hearing set for August 29th. The Attorney General, R. Venkataramani, will assist the Court. 

Why This Matters: More Than Just Legal Wrangling 

This case transcends the immediate parties involved. It strikes at the heart of India’s constitutional architecture: 

• Federal Balance: Can states effectively govern if key legislation is indefinitely stalled by an unelected Governor? 

• Separation of Powers: Does the judiciary overstep by imposing deadlines on constitutional functionaries? Or is it fulfilling its duty to prevent abuse of power and ensure constitutional governance functions? 

• Accountability: Are Governors truly immune from scrutiny for indefinite inaction on democratically passed bills? 

• Judicial Authority: Can binding Supreme Court judgments be effectively challenged or circumvented via Presidential Reference? 

The Human Insight: Democracy in Action or Deadlock? 

Beneath the legal jargon lies a fundamental question about how Indian democracy functions. The Supreme Court’s April ruling reflected deep public and political frustration with Governors holding bills hostage, often for politically motivated reasons. The Presidential Reference represents a pushback, arguing that core constitutional discretions cannot be fettered by judicial timelines. Tamil Nadu’s fierce response defends the judiciary’s role as the guardian against executive (or gubernatorial) overreach and inertia. 

The Constitution Bench‘s eventual opinion won’t just resolve a legal dispute; it will significantly redefine the boundaries of power between the Centre, the States, and the Judiciary, shaping the dynamics of Indian federalism for years to come. The outcome will determine whether state legislatures can expect their work to be acted upon within a reasonable timeframe, or if the specter of indefinite gubernatorial delay remains a potent tool in India’s political landscape.