Legal experts disagree on whether presidential reference is bypassing TN Governor’s ruling review

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal. File | Image source: ANI

The Legal Brotherhood’s reference to the Supreme Court order in the case of the President’s governor of Tamil Nadu is merely a strategy for the Union government to “bypass” the normal legal process of the Supreme Court decision.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin slammed the reference on Thursday (May 15, 2025) as an attempt to subvert the constitutional position of the April 8 Supreme Court decision and other judicial precedents.

Senior defense attorney Kapil Sibal agreed with the Chief Minister that reference is a secret way to revoke the judgment through two judges led by Justice JB Pardiwala.

If you don’t like the Supreme Court’s judgment, you will seek review. If the review is dismissed, you file a healing petition. This is the only way to put aside a Supreme Court decision… The judgment you make here is that you are seeking reference, you are seeking opinions, you are trying to limit whether you should judge the bill in a specific bill from the direction of the president, which is judged within a specific scope.

However, former Supreme Court Justice Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaur said seeking a review of the judgment was not decisive. Furthermore, the President’s power to propose reference cannot be removed by the Supreme Court’s review or treatment jurisdiction.

Judge Kaul said: “Again, the review will be conducted by the bench of the two judges who announced the verdict. Here, the president says that it involves constitutional issues and requires the opinion of the court.”

The former Supreme Court judge said he had a “serious reservation” about the court’s use of Section 142 in his judgment. He said Article 142 is limited to disputes – the states of Tamil Nadu and the governors of Tamil Nadu – cannot be used to issue instructions to the president and other state governors who do not belong to the lawsuit.

Mr. Sibar argued that according to the President’s reference, no matter what the opinion is, it is not binding. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s judgment is binding on everyone. Despite opinions, the verdict will still prevail. He said the president has the right to seek reference, but the Supreme Court does not have to answer.

But Justice Caul said the Supreme Court’s opinion was “good enough” from his personal perspective. It will end future conflicts.

The former Apex court judge believes: “Unless another judge of two or three judges in the Supreme Court will say that unless you are seeking reference, it can also be said that larger judges need to investigate the issue.” Judge Kaur said he expected such a thing to happen, saying that the president has mentioned the key points of the law.

But Mr. Sibar called the verdict a milestone.

“If there is no timetable, they could put aside their bills for months. That’s how they intend to destabilize the government. The governor has been intervening since the government came to power.”