Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin meets the public before leaving for Mettupalayam from Udhagamandalam, after his four-day tour of the Nilgiris.
| Photo Credit: M. Sathyamoorthy

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin said he would hold discussions with Chief Ministers of other States and decide on a course of action, following President Droupadi Murmu’s Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on its verdict delivered against Governor R.N. Ravi.

Speaking in Udhagamandalam on Friday (May 16, 2025), Mr. Stalin said he had already given a detailed response to the Central government’s “overreach” on Thursday (May 15), and added he was confident that the DMK would win the 2026 Assembly elections in the State.

“Not only in 2026, but in 2031 and 2036 too the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the Dravida model government would continue to be in power,” he said.

Recently, Ms. Murmu, in a Presidential Reference to the top court regarding its verdict in the Tamil Nadu government’s case against Mr. Ravi, had asked whether, in the absence of any constitutionally prescribed time limit or manner of exercise of powers by a Governor, such time limits and manner of exercise could be prescribed through judicial orders.

Strongly condmening the move, Mr. Stalin on Thursday said this it was a desperate attempt to weaken democratically elected State governments by placing them under the control of Governors “serving as agents of the Union government.”

Broadly, the May 13, 2025 Reference asked whether judicial orders could dictate the time frame and manner in which the President and Governors should act under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution — the provisions governing the grant of assent by Governors to State Bills, and the reservation of Bills by Governors for Presidential assent, respectively.

The President’s move to seek clarity under the apex court’s advisory jurisdiction arose from an April 8, 2025 judgement of a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government, challenging the Governor’s delay in clearing 10 re-passed Bills, and his subsequent action to reserve them for consideration by the President.

The judgment had held the Governor’s action illegal. This had led to the default cancellation of the President’s decision to grant assent to one of the 10 Bills, while rejecting seven and not considering two others.