Legal experts divided on whether Presidential Reference is a govt ploy to bypass review of T.N. Governor verdict

Legal experts debate the Union government's Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on the Tamil Nadu Governor case.

The legal fraternity was divided on whether the Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on its order in the Tamil Nadu Governor case was merely a ploy by the Union government to “bypass” the normal legal process of challenging the Supreme Court verdict.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin lashed out on Thursday (May 15, 2025) that the Reference was an attempt to subvert the constitutional position settled by the April 8 Supreme Court judgment and other judicial precedents.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal agreed with the Chief Minister’s viewpoint that the Reference was a clandestine way to reverse the judgment by a two-judge Bench headed by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

“If you do not like a Supreme Court judgment, you seek a review. If the review gets dismissed, you file a curative petition. That is the only way to set aside a Supreme Court judgment… What you are doing here is, by seeking a Reference, you are trying to get an opinion from the court as to whether the President is bound by a direction that you should decide on a Bill within a specific period of time. This is really bypassing the legal process available to them,” Mr. Sibal said.

Former Supreme Court judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul however said seeking a review of the judgment would not be decisive. Moreover, the power of the President to make a Reference cannot be taken away by the Supreme Court’s review or curative jurisdiction.

“A review, again, would be by the Bench of the same two judges who pronounced the judgment. Here, the President is saying there is a constitutional issue involved and needs an opinion from the court,” Justice Kaul said.

The former top court judge said he had “grave reservations” about the court’s use of Article 142 in the judgment. He said Article 142 was restricted to the parties - State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Governor - in the dispute, and cannot be used to issue directions against the President and other State Governors who were not part of the litigation.