Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday deferred the hearing of the writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Governor's decision to reserve the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 and the Sports University Bill for the consideration of the President of India.

The Court suggested that the State wait for the decision on the Presidential Reference on timelines for granting assent to Bills by the President and the Governor under Articles 200/201 of the Constitution.

The bench of CJI BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the matter.

"You have to wait hardly for 4 weeks, the reference has to be decided before 21st(November)," CJI Gavai told Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, who was appearing for the State.

Notably, CJI will be retiring on November 23.

The Government of Tamil Nadu has filed the present writ petition challenging the withholding of two bills by the Governor and referring them to the President of India. These Bills in question are (1) the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025 and (2) the Sports University Bill, which seeks to amend the Tamil Nadu Physical Education and Sports University Act.

The first bill, once approved, will make CM MK Stalin the first Vice Chancellor of the University; the second bill aims to empower the state government to remove/appoint the vice chancellors of the Sports University.

Sr Advocates AM Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. Singhvi stressed that the Governor cannot dissect the provisions of the Bill like a judge and deem them as 'repugnant'.

He said, "He (the governor) cannot refer to the President, the issue of repugnancy."

Rohatgi added, "The question today is, can the governor examine every clause like a judge and say -it's repugnant"

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that from 2015-2025, a total of 381 references have been made by Governors from all the states to the President of India. He stressed that if each reference by the governor starts getting challenged before the Court, the Court may need to set up separate benches for hearing it.

"If this is to be justiciable, my lords will have two separate benches permanently for deciding."

He also said that making a reference/ examining the provisions of the bill was part of the constitutional duty of the Governor. Replying to Rohatgi, he said, "The governor (position) is doing it since independence; that is his job"

The plea for the State of Tamil Nadu has been filed with the assistance of AOR Misha Rohatgi.

On September 11, a 5-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India had reserved its opinion on the Presidential Reference, which was made by the President after the two-judge bench's judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case setting timelines for the President and Governor to act on Bills.

Case Details : STATE OF TAMIL NADU Versus THE SECRETARY TO HIS EXCELLENCY, THE HONBLE GOVERNOR AND ORS.|W.P.(C) No. 978/2025