On November 21, 2025, Tamil Nadu’s political landscape was once again thrust into the national spotlight as Chief Minister and DMK President M K Stalin delivered a forceful response to the Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion regarding the powers of state Governors. Stalin’s message was clear and uncompromising: "There will be no rest until the Constitution is amended to fix timelines for Governors to clear Bills." This latest salvo marks a significant chapter in the ongoing tussle between the state’s elected government and the office of the Governor—a conflict that has come to symbolize broader debates over federalism and executive power in India.
Stalin’s remarks came just a day after the Supreme Court issued its advisory opinion on the Presidential Reference, a legal mechanism by which the President can seek the Court’s advice on constitutional matters. The Chief Minister was unequivocal in his assessment of the opinion’s impact: "The Supreme Court’s opinion in its answer to the Presidential Reference will have no impact on the April 8, 2025 judgment in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu," he stated, as reported by Mathrubhumi. For Stalin and his government, the issue at hand is not merely academic or procedural—it strikes at the heart of democratic governance and the rights of elected representatives to govern without undue interference.
At the core of this controversy is the question of whether Governors—appointed by the central government—can indefinitely delay or withhold assent to Bills passed by state legislatures. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, delivered on November 20, reaffirmed several key principles that have shaped the contours of Indian federalism. According to the Court, "the elected government should be in the driver’s seat, and there cannot be two executive power centres in the State." Furthermore, the Court categorically rejected the notion that Governors possess a so-called "pocket veto"—the ability to indefinitely withhold assent to legislation without explanation. "The Governor has no fourth option to kill the Bill or exercise a pocket veto (as was done by the TN Governor). He has no option to withhold the Bill simpliciter," Stalin emphasized, echoing the Court’s findings.
For the DMK and its supporters, this affirmation by the judiciary is both a vindication and a rallying cry. "Our fight for State rights and true federalism will continue," Stalin declared, signaling his intent to press for constitutional amendments that would set clear deadlines for Governors to act on Bills. He also underscored the importance of accountability, stating that "prolonged, unexplained, and indefinite delay by the Governor in considering a Bill" is grounds for states to approach Constitutional Courts. In his words, "When even a high Constitutional Authority breaches the Constitution, the Constitutional Courts are the only remedy, and the doors of the Court must not be closed. This would undermine the rule of law in our constitutional democracy and encourage breaches of the Constitution by Governors acting with political intent."
The roots of this conflict stretch back months, if not years. On April 12, 2025, the Tamil Nadu government notified ten Acts following a landmark Supreme Court judgment. These Acts, which had been passed again by the Assembly and sent to the President by the Governor, were deemed to have received assent. The legislation covered a range of subjects, but perhaps most notably included amendments to state-run university laws—transferring the power to appoint Vice Chancellors from the Governor-chancellor to the state government. This move was widely interpreted as an effort to curtail the Governor’s influence over higher education policy, a domain that has often been a flashpoint in state-centre relations.
However, the legislative process has hardly been smooth sailing. The Madras High Court granted an interim stay on the operation of these amendment Acts, prompting the state government to file an appeal with the Supreme Court. The legal wrangling has only deepened the sense of uncertainty and tension, with both sides accusing each other of overreach and obstruction.
Adding fuel to the fire, the office of the Governor—Raj Bhavan—recently issued a statement pushing back against allegations of deliberate delay. According to Raj Bhavan, as of October 31, 2025, "81 percent of the Bills" received had been assented to by the Governor. The statement took issue with what it described as "unfounded and factually incorrect allegations" that the Governor was acting against the interests of the people or intentionally stalling the legislative process. This data point, while notable, has done little to mollify critics within the DMK and other state parties, who see the Governor’s actions as politically motivated and symptomatic of a broader effort by the central government to undermine state autonomy.
The political stakes are high, and the rhetoric has grown correspondingly sharp. Senior DMK MP and advocate P Wilson weighed in on the Supreme Court’s advisory, noting that the "no timelines for Governors" stance was only an opinion, not a binding judgment. "It will also not have any impact on adjudication in the courts," Wilson told reporters, highlighting the ongoing legal ambiguity and the likelihood of further courtroom battles.
Underlying this legal and political drama is a fierce debate over the nature of Indian federalism itself. The DMK and other regional parties have long championed the cause of "state rights," arguing that India’s constitutional structure was designed to empower elected governments at the state level, not to subordinate them to centrally appointed Governors. The current conflict with Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi is emblematic of these tensions. The DMK regime has accused Ravi of acting "politically at the behest of the BJP government at the Centre" and of being "biased" in his handling of Bills—a charge that the Governor’s office strenuously denies.
For many observers, the outcome of this standoff will have implications far beyond Tamil Nadu. The question of how much discretion Governors should have in withholding assent to state legislation is a live issue in several states across India, particularly those governed by parties in opposition to the ruling coalition at the Centre. The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion, while not legally binding, has set down a marker: constitutional functionaries must act within their prescribed limits, and the ultimate authority rests with the people’s representatives.
As the legal process unfolds and political maneuvering continues, one thing is abundantly clear—this is a battle that neither side is willing to concede. As Stalin put it in a statement quoted by Mathrubhumi and The Indian Express, "I have promises to keep, and until our people’s will in Tamil Nadu is fulfilled through legislation, we will ensure that every constitutional apparatus functions in this country in accordance with the Constitution." With the stakes so high and the principles so fundamental, the eyes of the nation—and perhaps the world—will remain fixed on Tamil Nadu’s unfolding constitutional drama.
As the dust settles on this latest round, the debate over the powers of Governors and the rights of state governments is far from over. The next moves, whether in the courts or the legislature, will shape the balance of power in India’s federal system for years to come.
