Stalin presses for constitutional fix amid Supreme Court advisory
In the wake of a Supreme Court advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin asserted that the struggle for state rights and genuine federalism would continue. Speaking on Friday, November 21, 2025, Stalin reiterated his demand for a constitutional mechanism that clearly defines the timelines within which Governors must grant assent to legislation passed by state assemblies. The push aims to prevent delays that critics say undermine legislative autonomy and hinder governance at the state level.
Stalin’s stance comes at a time when debates over the balance of power between state governments and the Union, and the role of Governors, have re-emerged in Indian political discourse. By tying the call to a constitutional amendment, he signalled an insistence that the problem is not merely procedural but structural — requiring written timelines and enforceable standards to ensure timely passage of state legislation.
Context: Governors’ assent and federalism in the Constitution
Under the Indian Constitution, a bill approved by a state legislature typically requires assent from the Governor before becoming law. Instances of delayed assent—or withholding it—have sparked accusations of political interference and undermined state sovereignty. While the presidential reference and the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion provide clarifications on constitutional interpretations, leaders like Stalin argue that they also highlight gaps that constitutional amendments could resolve more definitively than ad hoc judgments or executive practices.
Advocates for reform contend that explicit timelines would reduce ambiguity, limit discretionary delays, and preserve the principle of cooperative federalism. Opponents, meanwhile, warn against rigid deadlines that could compress deliberation or escalate constitutional confrontations between states and the Union surrounded by political fault lines.
The Supreme Court advisory and its implications
The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in response to a Presidential Reference touched on constitutional interpretations surrounding federal relations, executive action, and the boundaries of Governor powers. While advisory opinions are not binding as legal precedents in the same way as rulings on concrete disputes, they carry significant persuasive weight for lawmakers and constitutional scholars. Stalin framed the Court’s guidance as a call to reform, arguing that the current framework is not fully compatible with the needs of timely governance in diverse states.
What a constitutional amendment could entail
A constitutional amendment to fix Governor assent timelines would likely specify a maximum window for the Governor to act after a bill is passed by the state legislature. It could establish consequences for inaction, or define a process for automatic assent after the expiry of the prescribed period, subject to exceptions for specific constitutional situations. Such changes would aim to:
- Clarify the expectations on executive assent and reduce opportunistic delays.
- Strengthen the democratic mandate by ensuring state bills are implemented promptly.
- Preserve federal balance by codifying timelines that respect both state legislative prerogatives and the Union’s constitutional framework.
Political reactions and next steps
Stalin’s remarks have intensified a broader debate about governance, federalism, and constitutional reform ahead of upcoming legislative sessions. Supporters view the call as a pragmatic move to safeguard state autonomy and ensure that regional policy responses can keep pace with evolving social and economic needs. Critics may scrutinize how such amendments would interact with other constitutional safeguards and whether they could be weaponized in political bargaining.
Looking forward, any push for a constitutional amendment will require broad political consensus and parliamentary engagement at both the state and national levels. The process could involve consultations, draft proposals, and potentially a referendum or a two-thirds majority in Parliament, depending on the exact nature of the proposed changes.
Conclusion: A test of governance and federalism
As Tamil Nadu and other states continue to press for reforms that clarify and expedite the passage of state laws, Stalin’s call for fixed timelines signals a broader commitment to strengthening governance and true federalism. Whether the Centre and Opposition parties can reach common ground on constitutional amendments remains to be seen, but the debate has moved to the core question: how best to align institutional structures with the practical demands of modern, multi-state governance.
