New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday negated Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s move to question the “constitutional validity” of a two-day session of the state assembly held in June this year, saying, “It is not open for a governor — who is a titular head of state — to cast a doubt on the session of the legislature.”
The significant ruling demarcates the governor’s role from that of the Speaker of a legislative assembly. A bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud observed: “Any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the legislature would be fraught with great perils to democracy. The Speaker, who has been recognised to be the guardian of the privileges of the House, was acting in his jurisdiction in adjourning the house sine die.”
“Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the governor. The legislative assembly comprises duly elected members,” the bench said. However, the bench also pulled up the Punjab government for “defeating the Constitution” by holding two extended sessions of the assembly’s budget session.
With these observations, the bench ordered the Punjab governor to proceed to decide on the four bills that have been submitted for his assent. The decision, it clarified, should be consistent with Article 200 of the Constitution, which gives power to governors to grant or withhold assent to a bill, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.
The court’s order came on a writ petition filed by the Punjab government alleging inaction on the governor’s part on four bills that were cleared by the assembly with an “overwhelming majority.”
Purohit had refused to take a call on the four bills, while doubting the validity of the June session of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in which they were passed. According to the Punjab government, the June session was an extension of the budget session held in March.
But according to Purohit, the state legislature was bound to have three sessions — budget, monsoon and winter. However, the legislature kept extending the budget session. Though the session was to end in March, the assembly reconvened once in June and then again in October as part of the budget session.
Hence, the session was not prorogued, but was simply adjourned, and instead of a fresh monsoon session being called, the budget session was reconvened in June. Since it was not a fresh session, the need to wait for the governor to summon a session did not arise. Thus, the session in June was held without waiting for the governor to call for it.
It may be recollected that the monsoon session of Punjab Assembly was convened in March this year only after judicial intervention. The state government had approached the top court when the governor did not summon the budget session, despite the advice of the council of ministers.
In the June session, the assembly cleared four bills. Raising doubts over the validity of the session, the governor sought a legal opinion on the issue. Purohit had also raised his concerns when the Speaker convened an assembly session on 20 and 21 October, once again calling it an extension of the monsoon session. This special session was cut short after Purohit called it illegal.
It was in this backdrop that the Punjab government approached the top court, urging it to declare the legislative assembly sessions held in June and October to be legal.
Also read: It’s Punjab governor versus CM once again, this time over ‘illegal mining’ by AAP MLA’s relative
Governor ‘playing with fire’
During the hearing, the court wondered how assembly sessions could be adjourned sine die. It told senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Punjab, that the extension of the budget session was a “subterfuge” and did not augur well for democracy. It asked Singhvi to advise the government that what it was doing was “defeating the Constitution”.
“How can sessions be adjourned sine die like this? Ultimately, if democracy has to work, it has to be in the hands of chief ministers and governors. You cannot defeat the rules of the legislative assembly merely by saying that we are not proroguing the House,” the bench observed verbally.
The court advised the chief minister to maintain decorum in the language of discourse. This was done when it was informed about Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann calling the governor “velha” (someone with nothing productive to do) in the assembly in June. It went on to observe that the Speaker’s powers to adjourn a session cannot be misused to keep the House in suspended animation permanently. This prompted Singhvi to assure the bench that he would advise the Speaker to convene the winter session at an early date.
Yet, the court noted that it was within the powers of the Speaker to adjourn the budget session convened in March — instead of proroguing it — and call it back in June.
As for the governor, the bench said he was “playing with fire” by withholding assent on four bills. “How can you say that a bill which has been passed cannot be assented to because the session is invalid? You realise the gravity of what you are doing? You are playing with fire. How can the governor say this? These bills have been passed by elected members. Will we continue to be a parliamentary democracy,” the bench remarked verbally.
In its order, the bench underscored that in the parliamentary form of democracy, the real power is vested in elected representatives of the people. The government consists of the state legislators, and, therefore, they are accountable to and subject to scrutiny by the legislature. The fundamental principle to be followed is that the governor acts on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
And this premise, it added, is based on the constitutional foundation that the “power to take decisions affecting the governance of the state or nation is essentially entrusted to the elected arm of the state and the governor is intended to be a constitutional statesman, guiding the government on matters of constitutional concern”.
(Edited by Rohan Manoj)
Also read: SC student dropouts to ‘outsiders’ in meetings: Punjab governor’s 5 bones of contention with Mann