Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12185
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJ, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr Gurminder Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Satya Pal Jain
The Governor is constitutionally required to act promptly on Bills passed by the State Legislature and cannot withhold assent based on perceived illegitimacy of legislative processes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32, Article 200, Article 207, Article 174, Article 178, Article 212 - The Governor of Punjab cannot withhold assent to Bills passed by the State Legislature; he acted unconstitutionally by questioning the legality of sessions convened by the Speaker - Conclusively, the Speaker’s authority to adjourn and reconvene is integral to legislative functioning. (Paras 15-28, 44-46)
(B) Principle of Parliamentary Democracy - The legislature must function independently, and the Governor's role is symbolic, ensuring that elected representatives exercise legislative power without undue interference. This principle is fundamental for maintaining the integrity of democratic governance. (Paras 15-18)
Facts of the case:
The State of Punjab petitioned against the Governor’s refusal to act on multiple Bills passed by the Vidhan Sabha, asserting that the sessions were validly conducted, and sought declarations on their legality. A timeline of events leading to the petition was detailed, including the Governor’s communications surrounding the legislative actions.
Findings of Court:
The court found no constitutional basis for the Governor's actions against the legislative sessions and asserted that any attempt to undermine these would be perilous for democracy.
Issues: The court primarily addressed whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature and if the Speaker can reconvene a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha that was adjourned but not prorogued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Governor is constitutionally obligated to act promptly on Bills and cannot indefinitely delay them, reaffirming the Speaker’s exclusive authority over legislative procedures.
Result: The court affirmed the legality of the Vidhan Sabha sessions and directed the Governor to act on the pending Bills.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction invocation under article 32 (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. governor's duties regarding legislative business (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner's and governor's arguments (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. governor's role as symbolic head in lawmaking (Para 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26) |
| 5. importance of constitutional mandates (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 28) |
| 6. adjournment vs prorogation distinction (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. speaker's authority over legislative procedure (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 8. valid sessions and governor's responsibilities (Para 44 , 45) |
| 9. disposition of the petition (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGEMENT
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents I. Factual background ................................................................................................... 3 II. Submissions .............................................................................................................. 7 III. Analysis .................................................................................................................... 9 A. The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature ............................................................................................ 9 B. Reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has not been prorogued is permissible in law and is within the exclusive domain of the Speaker .............. 18 1. Distinction between adjournment and prorogation ............................................. 18 2. Exclusive domain of the Speaker to regulate the procedure of the House ........ 23 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 26
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under
I. Factual background
2. On 22 February 2023, the Council of Ministers of the Government of Punjab forwarded a recommendation to the Governor of Punjab seeking the summoning of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session commencing on 3 March 2023. The Governor’s refusal to do so, on the ground that he was seeking legal advice, led to the institution of a petition before this Court on 25 February 2023. On 28 February 2023, this Court delivered its judgment in the State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab1. This Court observed that: “There was no occasion to seek legal advice on whether or not the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly should be convened. The Governor was plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers.”
3. While concluding its judgment, this Court had the following observations on the broader aspects of mature political governance in a democracy:
- “Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy. Such a situation emerged before this Court, leading to the institution of a petition under 1 Writ Petition (Civil) No 302 of 2023 Article 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the Governor to summon the Legislative Assembly. It is inconceivable that the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly would not be convened. We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in
