THE STATE OF PUNJAB vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB, 2023
Case Title and Citation
State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another
Citation: 2023 INSC 1017
Factual Background
The State of Punjab (the Petitioner) approached the Supreme Court because the Governor did not
(i) assent to four Bills passed by the Vidhan Sabha, nor return them, and
(ii) failed to provide a recommendation required for the introduction of certain Money Bills in the Vidhan Sabha.
The background includes a previous dispute where the Governor initially refused to summon the Budget Session on March 3, 2023, leading the Supreme Court to rule that the Governor was “plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers”. Following this decision, the Vidhan Sabha was summoned.
The Speaker adjourned the session sine die on March 22, 2023. Subsequently, the Speaker reconvened the sitting of the session on June 19 and 20, 2023, in pursuance of the Rules of Procedure. During this session, the Vidhan Sabha passed four Bills.
The Governor took no action on these Bills. In correspondence, the Governor stated that, based on legal advice, the act of calling the Vidhan Sabha session on June 19 and 20, 2023, was potentially “in breach of law and procedure,” thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy and legality of the Bills passed. The Governor also withheld approval for the subsequent introduction of three Money Bills, declaring that the sessions were “patently illegal” and the business transacted was “unlawful, and ab-initio void”.
Issue(s)
Two issues arose for consideration by the Supreme Court:
- Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills which have been passed by the State Legislature.
- Whether it is permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the challenges against the validity of the sessions and held that there was no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the Vidhan Sabha sessions.
The Court directed the Governor of Punjab to proceed to take a decision on the Bills which had been submitted for assent, acting in a manner consistent with Article 200 of the Constitution.
Reason for the decision
The Court based its decision on the constitutional role of the Governor and the exclusive domain of the Speaker:
- Governor as Symbolic Head: The Governor is the titular/symbolic head of State and must act on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution explicitly grants discretionary power. This principle ensures that power rests with the elected government.
- Obligation under Article 200: When a Bill is presented, the Governor must “declare” one of three options: assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
- Constitutional Imperative of Expedition: If the Governor decides to return a Bill (which is not a Money Bill), the first proviso to Article 200 requires this action to be taken “as soon as possible,” conveying a constitutional imperative of expedition.
- No Veto Power: If the Governor decides to withhold assent, this power must be read together with the consequential requirement to remit the Bill to the State Legislature for reconsideration (as indicated in the first proviso). The Governor, as an unelected Head of State, cannot indefinitely keep a Bill pending or use the power to withhold assent to “virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain”.
- Speaker’s Exclusive Domain: The Constitution and established legislative practice draw a distinction between adjournment (an interruption within the same session) and prorogation (which terminates a session).
- Validity of Sessions: Since the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned sine die but not prorogued on March 22, 2023, the Speaker was acting well within the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in reconvening the sitting. Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules of Procedure expressly recognizes the Speaker’s power to call a meeting after the assembly has been adjourned sine die. The Speaker is the “sole custodian of the proceedings of the House”, and the validity of proceedings after the resumption of sittings cannot be inquired into by the courts on grounds of procedural irregularity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the sittings of the Vidhan Sabha on June 19, June 20, and October 20, 2023, were constitutionally valid. Casting doubt on the validity of the legislative session is not a constitutional option available to the Governor. The Governor must now proceed to exercise jurisdiction on the Bills presented to him, acting in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution.
