InWrit Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023 -SC-Governor can't thwart lawmaking: Supreme Court orders Punjab Governor to act on pending bills 'as soon as possible'
Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala& Justice Manoj Misra [10-11-2023]

Read Order: State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 24, 2023: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that the Governor cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature.

In this case, the State of Punjab had moved to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking relief in relation to the Sessions held on 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023, and 20 October 2023 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. Specifically, the state was seeking a declaration affirming the legality of these sessions and validating the business transacted by the House. Additionally, the State of Punjab was seeking a mandamus to ensure that seven Bills, including three Money Bills, which had been kept pending by the Governor, are processed in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court had entertained the petition on 6 November 2023 and had been informed that subsequent to the filing of the petition, the Governor had recommended the introduction of two out of the three Money Bills, namely, the Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2023 and the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2023, before the Vidhan Sabha.

Two issues arose for consideration: first, whether the Governor could withhold action on Bills that had been passed by the State Legislature; and second, whether it was permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session that had been adjourned but not prorogued.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed that in a Parliamentary form of democracy, real power was vested in the elected representatives of the people, both at the State and Central levels. The Governor, as an appointee of the President, was the titular head of the State. The fundamental principle of constitutional law consistently followed since the adoption of the Constitution was that the Governor acted on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers, except in areas where the Constitution entrusted the exercise of discretionary power to the Governor. The bench emphasized that this principle cemented the constitutional foundation, signifying that the power to make decisions affecting the governance of the State or nation primarily lay with the elected arm of the government.Furthermore, the bench underscored that the Governor was intended to be a constitutional statesman, guiding the government on matters of constitutional concern.

The bench stated that the Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, possesses constitutional powers, but these powers cannot be utilized to impede the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures. If the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, it is logical to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso, which involves remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. The power to withhold assent under Article 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso. Failing to do so would allow the unelected Head of State to potentially veto the functioning of the legislative domain, thus contradicting fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance.

Further, the bench noted that concerning Money Bills, the power of the Governor to return a Bill in terms of the first proviso was excluded from the purview of the constitutional power of the Governor. Money Bills were governed by Article 207, requiring the recommendation of the Governor for the introduction of the Bill on a matter specified in clauses (a) to (f) of clause (1) of Article 199.

The bench emphasized that the Governor was not at liberty to withhold his action on the Bills that had been placed before him and had no avenue but to act in a manner postulated under Article 200 of the Constitution.

Thus, the bench ruled that the Governor of Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act ‘as soon as possible’.

Further, the bench, referred to the case of Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India and Others [LQ/SC/2010/328], wherein the constitutional distinction between the prorogation of the House and its adjournment was highlighted. The Court had explained that an adjournment was an interruption in the course of one and the same session, while prorogation terminated a session, putting an end to all proceedings in Parliament. The bench noted that in the present case, the Vidhan Sabha being adjourned on 22 March 2023 without prorogation, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene the sittings of the House within the same session.

The bench observed that under Article 122(2), the decision of the Speaker, in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and conduct of business, is final and binding on every Member of the House. The validity of the Speaker adjourning the House sine die and the subsequent direction to resume sittings could not be inquired into on the grounds of any irregularity of procedure.

The bench held that Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly)empowered the Vidhan Sabha to adjourn from time to time by its own order. The first proviso to Rule 16 acknowledged that adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha could be either to a particular day or sine die. Thus, the bench concluded that it was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without prorogation. Furthermore, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House.

The bench observed that the submission made by the State of Punjab in the present petition, seeking a declaration that the sessions of the Vidhan Sabha and the business transacted within them were legal, was based on misconceptions. The bench noted that the declaration was not sought in isolation but as a response to the Governor's inaction on the Bills, purportedly due to the belief that the sessions were invalid. The State of Punjab consistently asserted that the sessions of the Vidhan Sabha and the business conducted therein were legal and constitutionally valid, as evidenced by the correspondence.

Consequently, the bench had held that there was no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the session of the Vidhan Sabha held on 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023, and 20 October 2023. It stated that any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the legislature would pose significant risks to democracy. The Speaker, recognized as a guardian of the privileges of the House and a constitutionally authorized representative of the House, was deemed to have been acting within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die. Furthermore, the re-convening of the House was considered to be within the scope of Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure.

The Court emphasized that casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House was not a constitutional option open to the Governor. It noted that the Legislative Assembly was comprised of duly elected Members of the Legislature, and during the tenure of the Assembly, the House was governed by decisions taken by the Speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation.

Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that the Governor of Punjab must proceed to take a decision on the Bills submitted for assent on the basis that the sitting of the House conducted on 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023, and 20 October 2023 was constitutionally valid.