Title- State of Punjab Versus Principal Secretary to the Governor
Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023
Date of Judgment- November 10, 2023
CORAM: Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra
Facts of the Case:
The writ petition had been filed by the State of Punjab under Article 32 of the Constitution due to the inaction of the Governor regarding several legislative matters. The State of Punjab contended that the Governor failed to fulfill his constitutional duties by not assenting to four Bills passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and by not providing a recommendation for the introduction of certain Money Bills. Specifically, the Governor did not take any action on the Bills passed during the session held on 19 and 20 June 2023, raising doubts about their legitimacy. Additionally, he withheld approval for three Money Bills proposed to be introduced in a special session on 20 October 2023, citing their alleged illegality and unconstitutionality.
The State of Punjab sought two main remedies through this writ petition. Firstly, it requested a declaration from the Court affirming the legality of the sessions held on 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023, and 20 October 2023, asserting the validity of the business conducted during these sessions. Secondly, the State of Punjab sought a mandamus instructing the Governor to process the pending Bills, including the three Money Bills, in accordance with the law. Despite some progress made by the Governor in recommending the introduction of two out of the three Money Bills, the State of Punjab sought a comprehensive resolution to ensure all pending legislative matters are addressed appropriately.
Laws Involved:
- Article 32, 174, 178, 200, 207, 212 of the Indian Constitution
Issues raised by the court:
- Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills that 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?
Courts Judgment and Analysis:
The first issue encompassed a thorough examination of constitutional provisions and legal principles. The court began by emphasizing the foundational principles of a Parliamentary democracy where real power rested with elected representatives, and the Governor acted on the ‘aid and advice’ of the Council of Ministers. Reference was made to established precedents such as Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, highlighting the Governor’s role as a constitutional head who exercised powers on the advice of ministers, except in areas where discretion was explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Furthermore, the court underscored the significance of federalism, a basic feature of the Constitution, and the pivotal role of the Governor as a symbolic Head of State in safeguarding this feature. It stressed that unbridled discretion by the Governor could undermine democratically elected governments at the state level, thereby threatening the core principles of federalism and democracy. Drawing from State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India and other cases, the court underscored the importance of institutions in upholding constitutional values and democratic governance. It emphasized the need for robust institutional governance accommodating diverse viewpoints and fostering criticism and dissent.
Specifically addressing Article 200 of the Constitution, the court interpreted its provisions, particularly the first and second provisos. It elucidated that while the Governor had the power to withhold assent to Bills, such action had to be followed by specific procedural steps outlined in the first proviso. This included promptly communicating a message to the legislature for reconsideration. The court emphasized the constitutional imperative of expedition in this process, highlighting that the Governor could not indefinitely delay action on Bills duly passed by the legislature. The court also clarified that the power of the Governor to return Bills did not extend to Money Bills, as governed by Article 207. Money Bills required the Governor’s recommendation for introduction, thereby limiting the Governor’s authority in this regard.
In conclusion, the court asserted that the Governor could not withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature without following the prescribed constitutional procedures. It emphasized that regardless of any objections raised by the Governor, the democratic mandate of the legislature had to be respected, and the Governor was duty-bound to act promptly in accordance with constitutional provisions.
On the second Issue the court meticulously examined the relevant constitutional provisions and legislative practices to arrive at its conclusion.
Article 174 of the Constitution delineates the Governor’s powers regarding summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the legislature. The court underscored the distinction between adjournment and prorogation, emphasizing that adjournment denotes a temporary interruption within the same session, while prorogation marks the termination of a session. Moreover, the court highlighted the constitutional recognition of multiple sittings within a single session.
Drawing from established legislative practices and precedents, the court noted instances where adjournment sine die was not followed by prorogation, with reconvening facilitated by the Speaker. Notably, the court referenced specific instances from Lok Sabha sessions to illustrate this practice.
The court further examined the rules governing the procedure of the Vidhan Sabha, which expressly acknowledged the Speaker’s authority to reconvene a sitting after adjournment sine die, without requiring prorogation. This provision was not unique to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha but was prevalent across various state legislatures and even Parliament.
In its analysis, the court emphasized the exclusive domain of the Speaker in regulating the proceedings of the House, citing Article 178 of the Constitution. It reiterated the Speaker’s pivotal role as the guardian of the House’s privileges and the interpreter of its rules and procedures.
The court leaned on the precedent set in Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India and Others, which affirmed the finality of the Speaker’s decisions in regulating the House’s proceedings. It underscored that the courts were precluded from inquiring into the validity of legislative proceedings, as per Article 212 of the Constitution.
Based on these legal foundations, the court concluded that the reconvening of the Vidhan Sabha by the Speaker after adjournment without prorogation was legally permissible. It emphasized the Speaker’s authority in adjourning and reconvening the House, highlighting the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Ultimately, the court ruled that there was no valid constitutional basis to question the validity of the session reconvened by the Speaker. It emphasized the imperative of upholding the sanctity of legislative proceedings and the Speaker’s authority in this regard.
In its final judgment, the court directed the Governor to act on the bills presented for assent based on the assumption of the constitutionality of the reconvened session. However, it refrained from expressing any opinion on the Governor’s decision-making process concerning the bills, reminding that it must be in accordance with constitutional provisions.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the legality of the Speaker’s action in reconvening the Vidhan Sabha session, underlining the Speaker’s pivotal role in regulating legislative proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi
Click here to view the judgment
