Supreme Court Clarifies Governor’s Role in Assenting to State Bills: State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1017
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala J, and Manoj Misra J.
Can a Governor indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by a State Legislature? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the constitutional role of the Governor in the law-making process. This case arose from a dispute between the State of Punjab and its Governor regarding the assent to several crucial bills and the legality of reconvening the Vidhan Sabha. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasizes the importance of constitutional functionaries acting within the bounds of their powers, ensuring that the democratic process is not undermined.

Case Background

The dispute began when the Governor of Punjab refused to summon the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session in February 2023, citing the need for legal advice. This led to the State of Punjab filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the Governor to summon the Assembly, emphasizing that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. Following this, the Vidhan Sabha was summoned on March 3, 2023, and adjourned sine die on March 22, 2023, by the Speaker. Subsequently, the Speaker reconvened the session on June 19 and 20, 2023, during which four bills were passed. However, the Governor did not take any action on these bills. Later, when the State Government sought to introduce three Money Bills, the Governor again raised objections, questioning the legality of the reconvened sessions. This led to the State of Punjab filing another petition before the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration on the legality of the sessions and a direction for the Governor to process the pending bills.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The State of Punjab, aggrieved by the Governor’s inaction on the bills and the questioning of the legality of the Vidhan Sabha sessions, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The State sought a declaration that the sessions held on June 19, June 20, and October 20, 2023, were legal and that the business transacted was valid. They also sought a mandamus directing the Governor to process the seven pending bills, including the three Money Bills. During the hearing, the Court was informed that the Governor had recommended the introduction of two of the three Money Bills.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following key legal provisions:

• Article 200 of the Constitution of India: This article outlines the procedure for a bill passed by the State Legislature to become law. It states that a bill must be presented to the Governor, who can either assent to the bill, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President’s consideration. The first proviso of Article 200 allows the Governor to return a bill (other than a Money Bill) to the legislature for reconsideration.
  

  “When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President:”

• Article 174 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the summoning, prorogation, and dissolution of the State Legislature. It stipulates that the Governor shall summon the House from time to time and that not more than six months shall intervene between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for the first sitting in the next session.
  

  “The Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.”

• Article 207(1) of the Constitution of India: This article specifies that a Money Bill can only be introduced in the State Legislature with the recommendation of the Governor.
  

  “A Bill or amendment making provision for any of the matters specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) of clause (1) of Article 199 shall not be introduced or moved except on the recommendation of the Governor, and a Bill making such provision shall not be introduced in a Legislative Council:”

• Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha: This rule allows the Vidhan Sabha to adjourn from time to time and empowers the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it has been adjourned sine die.
  

  “Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and these Rules the Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) may be adjourned from time to time by its own order: Provided that a motion for adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) to a day or sine die shall not be made except in consultation with the Speaker: Provided further that the Speaker may, if it is represented to him by the Minister that the public interest requires that the Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment and if he is satisfied that the public interest does so require, give notice that he is so satisfied, and call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) before the day to which it has been adjourned or any time after it has been adjourned sine die.”

The Court also emphasized that the Governor is a symbolic head of the State and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in areas where the Constitution grants discretionary powers to the Governor.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners (State of Punjab):

• The Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly was adjourned sine die by the Speaker and not prorogued by the Governor.
• The Governor could not treat the adjournment sine die as a prorogation of the House.
• The Speaker acted within constitutional jurisdiction by reconvening the Assembly on June 19 and 20, 2023, under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure.
• Regulating the procedure of the House is the sole discretion of the Speaker.
• The Governor, as a symbolic head, exceeded his constitutional powers by questioning the legality of the reconvened session.
• The Governor’s inaction effectively nullified legislation passed by the majority of the Legislative Assembly.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent (Principal Secretary to the Governor):

• After the Budget Session, the House should have been prorogued, and it was not permissible for the Speaker to adjourn sine die and reconvene.
• Rule 14A of the Rules of Procedure requires three sessions: Budget, Monsoon, and Winter. The Speaker could not continue the Budget Session in June 2023.
• The Governor has assented to 185 bills, indicating no delay, and the objection was only due to the manner of adjournment.
• The Governor has recommended the introduction of two of the three Money Bills.
• The State of Punjab’s request for a declaration of the legality of the sessions indicates uncertainty about their validity.
• The Governor would have no objection to dealing with the bills if the Court clarifies the legality of the reconvened session.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature.
2. Whether it is permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but not prorogued.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Governor was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act “as soon as possible” in accordance with Article 200. The Court also upheld the legality of the Vidhan Sabha sessions held on June 19, June 20, and October 20, 2023, stating that the Speaker was within his jurisdiction to reconvene the House after it was adjourned sine die. The Court clarified that the Governor is bound by the constitutional scheme and cannot act contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations where the Constitution grants discretionary powers.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab [(1974) 2 SCC 831]: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that the Governor is a constitutional head who acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• SR Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1]: The Court relied on this authority to reinforce the importance of federalism and the Governor’s role in safeguarding it.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India [(2018) 8 SCC 501]: The Court used this authority to highlight the importance of institutions in a democratic system.
• State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana & Anr. [WP(C) No. 333 of 2023]: The Court referred to this authority to emphasize the constitutional imperative of expedition in the Governor’s actions.
• Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India and Others [(2010) 4 SCC 1]: The Court used this authority to distinguish between adjournment sine die and prorogation and to underscore the Speaker’s role in the House’s procedure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of constitutional democracy and the separation of powers. The Court emphasized that the Governor, as an unelected head of state, cannot thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislature. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:

• The Governor is a symbolic head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• The power to enact legislation lies with the elected representatives of the people.
• The Governor’s role is recommendatory, not binding, on the State Legislature.
• The Governor must act “as soon as possible” when dealing with bills.
• The Speaker has the exclusive domain to regulate the procedure of the House.
• There is a clear distinction between adjournment sine die and prorogation.

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the Governor’s argument that the reconvened sessions were illegal, emphasizing that the Speaker has the authority to regulate the procedure of the House. The Court also clarified that the Governor’s role is not to veto the functioning of the legislature but to act as a constitutional statesman.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures.”

“The expression “as soon as possible” is significant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression.”

“The Legislative Assembly comprises of duly elected Members of the Legislature. During the tenure of the Assembly, the House is governed by the decisions which are taken by the Speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation.”

Key Takeaways

• The Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
• The Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State Legislature.
• The Speaker has the authority to reconvene a session of the House that has been adjourned sine die.
• The Governor must act “as soon as possible” when dealing with bills.
• The Governor’s role is recommendatory and not binding on the State Legislature.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Governor of Punjab to take a decision on the bills submitted for assent, recognizing the validity of the Vidhan Sabha sessions held on June 19, June 20, and October 20, 2023. The Court clarified that the Governor must act in accordance with Article 200 of the Constitution.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State Legislature and must act in accordance with Article 200 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also clarified the distinction between adjournment sine die and prorogation, affirming the Speaker’s authority to reconvene a session after adjournment sine die. This judgment reinforces the principles of constitutional democracy, separation of powers, and the importance of the Governor acting within the bounds of their constitutional powers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor (2023) clarifies the constitutional role of the Governor in the law-making process. The Court emphasized that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to bills passed by the State Legislature and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court also upheld the Speaker’s authority to reconvene a session of the House after it has been adjourned sine die. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of constitutional functionaries acting within their designated powers to uphold the democratic process.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

• Child Category: Article 200, Constitution of India
• Child Category: Article 174, Constitution of India
• Child Category: Article 207, Constitution of India
• Child Category: Governor’s Powers
• Child Category: State Legislature
• Child Category: Speaker’s Powers

Parent Category: Indian Polity

• Child Category: Separation of Powers
• Child Category: Federalism
• Child Category: Democratic Governance

Parent Category: Rules of Procedure

• Child Category: Rule 16, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha

FAQ

Q: Can a Governor refuse to give assent to a bill passed by the State Legislature?
A: No, a Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent. The Governor must act in accordance with Article 200 of the Constitution, which includes either assenting to the bill, withholding assent and returning it for reconsideration, or reserving it for the President.

Q: What does “adjournment sine die” mean in the context of a State Legislature?
A: “Adjournment sine die” means adjourning the sitting of the House without specifying a date for the next sitting. It is different from prorogation, which terminates a session.

Q: Can a Speaker reconvene a session of the State Legislature after it has been adjourned sine die?
A: Yes, the Speaker has the authority to reconvene a session of the House after it has been adjourned sine die, provided it has not been prorogued.

Q: What is the role of the Governor in the law-making process?
A: The Governor is a constitutional head of the State and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Governor’s role is recommendatory, not binding, on the State Legislature.

Q: What is the significance of the term “as soon as possible” in Article 200?
A: The term “as soon as possible” conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. The Governor must act promptly when dealing with bills passed by the State Legislature.