The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the Governor being a symbolic head cannot withhold action on bills passed by the State Legislature. It was expounded that the failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with the expression used in Article 200 of the Constitution. The Top Court also held that the Speaker can reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued.
Brief Facts:
State of Punjab invoked jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution as the Governor did not:
(i) assent to four Bills which were passed by the Vidhan Sabha nor have they been returned; and
(ii) furnish a recommendation for the introduction of certain Money Bills in the Vidhan Sabha.
Brief Background:
During the pendency of the cases, the Governor has recommended introduction of 2 out of the 3 money bills before the Vidhan Sabha.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was urged that the adjournment of the House sine die could not have been treated by the Governor as a prorogation of the House. Further, that it is completely the discretion of the Speaker with regard to the regulation of rules of procedure and code of conduct of business in the House.
It was contended that the Governor did not act within his constitutional powers.
Contentions of the Secretary to Governor:
It was argued that the Speaker could not have adjourned the proceeding sine die. Further, that the budget session could not have been conducted in June, 2023.
Observations of the Court:
The primary issues to be addressed were:
1. Whether the Governor could withhold action on bills passed by the State Legislature
2. Whether it was permissible for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued.
In response to the first issue, It was opined that the Governor being a symbolic head cannot withhold action on bills passed by the State Legislature.
The Bench observed that the Governor typically acts based on the guidance of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where the Constitution grants the Governor discretionary authority. This principle firmly establishes that the authority to make decisions impacting the state or nation's governance primarily rests with the elected government. The Governor's role is designed to be that of a constitutional leader, offering guidance to the government on constitutional matters.
Three options available to a Governor on a bill being passed are:
(i) either that he assents to the Bill; or
(ii) that he withholds assents therefrom; or
(iii) that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President.
It was expounded that the Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with the expression used in Article 200 of the Constitution.
In response to the second issue, the Top Court opined that the Speaker can reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued.
The Bench distinguished between adjournment and prorogation and held that the present case was of adjournment without prorogation. It was held that the speaker is the guardian of the House and hence well within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 881 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
Advocates for Petitioners: Advs. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr Gurminder Singh
Advocate for Secretary to Governor: Adv. Mr. Satya Pal Jain
Read More @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :