CPI(M) and CPI Criticise Move, Call it Anti-Federal and Politically Motivated
New Delhi, May 15 – The Left parties have strongly condemned the Central government’s decision to invoke the rare presidential reference route under Article 143(1) of the Constitution to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on its April 8 verdict setting deadlines for governors to assent to bills passed by state legislatures.Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary M A Baby, quoting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin's post on the issue, said his party firmly opposes the move. “CPI(M) opposes the decision of the central government to opt for a presidential reference to the recent Supreme Court judgement on the Tamil Nadu government’s petition concerning the role of governors withholding 10 bills passed by the legislature,” Baby posted on X.
He alleged that governors are acting under the influence of the ruling BJP and obstructing the functioning of opposition-led state governments. “They are violating the federal principles enshrined in our Constitution. All the non-BJP state governments should condemn this move and unite against the centralisation of power,” he stated.
CPI Terms Presidential Reference as Undemocratic
Echoing similar sentiments, CPI general secretary D Raja called the presidential reference an attempt to undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling. “The CPI strongly condemns the BJP-led Union government’s move, via a Presidential Reference, to question the Supreme Court’s April 8 verdict mandating a timeline for governors to assent to bills passed by state assemblies,” he said.Raja accused the Centre of using the governor’s office as a “weapon” against opposition-ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He questioned the BJP’s objections to a time-bound process, asking, “What does the BJP want? To trample the will of the people using the unaccountable office of governor?”
Reiterating the federal nature of the Indian Constitution, Raja said, “India is a federal polity according to Article 1 of our Constitution. Once again, the BJP’s anti-federal fangs are out, for everyone to see.”
Background: April 8 Verdict and Presidential Reference
President Droupadi Murmu has exercised her powers under Article 143(1) to seek the apex court’s advisory opinion on whether courts can impose timelines on the president’s discretion in assenting to bills. This follows the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict on April 8, which directed that the president must decide on such bills within three months from the date the governors refer them.The Centre has chosen the presidential reference route instead of filing a review petition, which is normally heard by the same bench in chambers. In contrast, a presidential reference is heard by a five-judge Constitution bench and may even be declined by the court.
The political fallout of the decision continues to grow, with strong criticism emerging from various opposition quarters who view the move as another step towards centralising power at the cost of states’ autonomy.
