Legal Experts Divided Over Presidential Reference on Tamil Nadu Governor Case: Bypass or Constitutional Review?

Legal Experts Divided Over Presidential Reference on Tamil Nadu Governor Case: Bypass or Constitutional Review?

Last Updated May - 16 - 2025, 04:27 PM | Source : Fela News

The Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on the Tamil Nadu Governor verdict has sparked debate among legal experts. While some view it as an attempt to b

The legal community remains split over whether the Union government’s Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court regarding its order in the Tamil Nadu Governor case is a tactic to “bypass” the usual legal procedures for challenging the verdict. On Thursday (May 15, 2025), Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin criticized the Reference, calling it an attempt to undermine the constitutional principles established by the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment and related precedents.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal supported Stalin’s view, saying the Reference is a covert attempt to overturn the ruling by the two-judge Bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala. Sibal explained that if the government disagrees with a Supreme Court verdict, the proper course is to seek a review or file a curative petition if the review is dismissed. He argued that by seeking a Presidential Reference, the government is sidestepping this process to ask whether the President is obliged to act on a Bill within a specified timeframe, thus avoiding the legal channels.

On the other hand, former Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul stated that seeking a review would not be conclusive, and the President’s power to request a Reference is independent of the court’s review or curative powers. Justice Kaul expressed serious concerns about the court’s use of Article 142 in the judgment, noting it was intended to apply only to the disputing parties—Tamil Nadu and the Governor—and not against the President or other Governors who were not involved.

Sibal highlighted that while the President has the right to seek an opinion, such an opinion from the Supreme Court under a Presidential Reference is not binding, unlike a Supreme Court judgment, which must be followed. Meanwhile, Justice Kaul believed the court’s opinion would help resolve future disputes and saw the Reference as a reasonable step since the President raised a constitutional question that might require a larger Bench’s consideration.

Sibal called the original judgment a landmark decision, warning that without a fixed timeline, Governors could delay Bills indefinitely to destabilize governments. He accused Governors of interfering since the current government took office.

Share :