'You Will Have To Await Judgement On Presidential Reference': Supreme Court To Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu's government and Governor RN Ravi, the Supreme Court on October 17, 2025, directed the state to wait for the outcome of a pending Presidential Reference before proceeding with its challenge against the Governor's referral of a key bill to the President. The bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasized urgency, noting the verdict must come before CJI Gavai's retirement.

The plea concerns the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill, 2025, passed by the state assembly. Tamil Nadu argues the Governor's decision to reserve it for the President's consideration is "patently unconstitutional," violating Articles 163(1) and 200 of the Constitution, and should be deemed void ab initio. Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, contended that the Governor cannot act post the Council of Ministers' aid and advice, and raised concerns over endless judicial reviews of such disputes.

This stems from a broader constitutional conflict. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to state bills, imposing three-month timelines under Articles 200 and 201 to prevent executive overreach. In response, President Droupadi Murmu filed a reference on May 13, 2025, under Article 143, posing 14 questions on Governors' and President's discretion, federalism, and whether courts can mandate timelines—seen by Tamil Nadu and Kerala as an indirect challenge to the verdict. The Constitution Bench reserved judgement on September 11, 2025.

Tamil Nadu views the Governor's actions as undermining legislative autonomy, echoing prior withholdings of 10 bills (later deemed assented post the April ruling). The state and legal experts debate if the reference is a ploy to bypass review, risking federal balance.