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.
Source link
