'Intend to paralyse non-BJP states': Tamil Nadu CM MK Stalin hits out at Centre after President Murmu questions SC's governor judgement

NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin hit out at Centre's Presidential reference calling it an attempt to "subvert the Constitutional position" which has already been settled by the SC in the Tamil Nadu governor case. This came after President Droupadi Murmu posed 14 questions to the apex court over its verdict that fixed timelines for the President and governors.

He further posed three questions to the Centre asking whether it intended "to paralyse non-BJP state legislatures" by raising objections to the prescription of time limits.

"I strongly condemn the Union Government’s Presidential reference, which attempts to subvert the Constitutional position already settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu Governor’s case and other precedents. This attempt clearly exposes the fact that the Tamil Nadu Governor acted at the BJP’s behest to undermine the people’s mandate," he said in a post on X.

"This is nothing but a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected State Governments by placing them under the control of Governors serving as agents of the Union Government. It also directly challenges the majesty of law and the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution," he added.

He called upon all the non-BJP states to join forces in the "legal struggle to defend the Constitution".

"Our nation stands at a critical juncture. The questions raised in the reference reveal the BJP-led Union Government’s sinister intent to distort the Constitution’s basic distribution of powers and incapacitate the State Legislatures dominated by opposition parties. Thus, it poses a clear exigent threat to State autonomy," he said.


The SC on April 8 ruling established a clear timeline for governors to act on legislation passed by state assemblies. It clarified that under Article 200 of the Constitution, governors have no discretionary power regarding such bills and are constitutionally bound to follow the advice of the council of ministers.

It affirmed that state governments can directly approach it if the President withholds assent to a bill forwarded by a governor. Emphasizing constitutional limits, the bench—comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan—ruled that a governor cannot reserve a bill based on personal dissatisfaction, political considerations, or any irrelevant grounds, stating such actions would be unconstitutional and subject to immediate invalidation.