LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Governor is bound to summon the State Legislative Assembly on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Writ Petition
Case Name: State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another
[Judgment Date]: 28 February 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 157
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can a Governor refuse to summon the State Legislative Assembly for its budget session despite the advice of the Council of Ministers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab. The core issue revolved around the constitutional duties of the Governor and the Chief Minister, specifically concerning the summoning of the legislative assembly and the exchange of information between these constitutional functionaries. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, clarified that the Governor is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the assembly.
Case Background
The dispute arose when the Council of Ministers of the Government of Punjab recommended the summoning of the Budget Session of the Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 3 March 2023. On 23 February 2023, the Governor of Punjab communicated to the Chief Minister, referring to previous correspondence where the Governor had sought clarifications on certain issues. These issues included the selection process for principals sent to Singapore for training and the appointment of the Chairman of the Punjab Information and Communication Technology Corporation Limited. The Governor also raised concerns about the non-disbursal of scholarships to Scheduled Caste students, the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of PAU, the promotion of an IPS officer, and the presence of a private individual in meetings of senior officers.
The Chief Minister responded through a tweet and a letter on 14 February 2023, asserting that the state government was accountable to the people of Punjab and not to the Governor. The Chief Minister also questioned the basis on which Governors are appointed by the Central Government. Following this, the Governor stated that he would seek legal advice before deciding on the request to summon the Budget Session, citing the Chief Minister’s communications as “patently unconstitutional” and “extremely derogatory.” This inaction led the State of Punjab to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13 February 2023 | Governor of Punjab sends a communication to the Chief Minister raising concerns on specific issues. |
| 14 February 2023 | Chief Minister responds to the Governor’s communication through a letter and a tweet. |
| 22 February 2023 | Council of Ministers of Punjab recommends summoning the Budget Session of the Vidhan Sabha on 3 March 2023. |
| 23 February 2023 | Governor communicates to the Chief Minister, stating he will seek legal advice before deciding on summoning the Budget Session. |
| 28 February 2023 | Governor of Punjab issues an order summoning the Sixteenth Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session on 3 March 2023. |
| 3 March 2023 | Budget Session of the Sixteenth Vidhan Sabha scheduled to commence. |
Course of Proceedings
The State of Punjab filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the Vidhan Sabha. The State also sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Governor’s communication dated 23 February 2023 and a direction to facilitate the summoning of the Legislative Assembly for its Budget Session on 3 March 2023. The petition was mentioned for urgent orders, and the Supreme Court directed it to be listed on the same day. During the proceedings, the Solicitor General placed on record an order dated 28 February 2023, by which the Governor had summoned the Assembly for the Budget Session.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional provisions related to the duties of the Chief Minister and the powers of the Governor.
Article 167 of the Constitution of India outlines the duties of the Chief Minister regarding furnishing information to the Governor:
- “(a) to communicate to the Governor of the State all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation;”
- “(b) to furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may call for;”
- “(c) if the Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the Council.”
The Court noted that the Chief Minister must provide all requested information to enable the Governor to effectively discharge their duties, such as directing reconsideration of bills or identifying decisions made by a Minister without the Council’s consideration.
Article 174 of the Constitution of India pertains to the sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation, and dissolution:
- “(1) 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.”
- “(2) The Governor may from time to time – (a) prorogue the House or either House; (b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly.”
The Court emphasized that the power to summon the House under Article 174 is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides revolved around the interpretation of constitutional duties and powers.
Petitioner (State of Punjab):
- ✓ The Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, especially in matters of summoning the Vidhan Sabha.
- ✓ The Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly based on the Chief Minister’s tweet and letter was unconstitutional.
- ✓ The Governor’s action was a violation of the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Respondent (Governor of Punjab):
- ✓ The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister under Article 167(b) of the Constitution.
- ✓ The Chief Minister’s tweet and letter were “patently unconstitutional” and “extremely derogatory,” justifying the Governor’s need to seek legal advice before summoning the assembly.
- ✓ The Governor is not a mere rubber stamp and has a duty to ensure a just, fair, and honest administration.
The innovativeness of the argument by the Governor was that he was not a mere rubber stamp and had a duty to ensure a just, fair, and honest administration and therefore had the right to seek legal advice before summoning the assembly.
Submissions
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Governor’s Duty to Summon Assembly |
|
State of Punjab |
| Governor’s Right to Seek Information |
|
Governor of Punjab |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:
- Whether the Governor is duty-bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in the matter of summoning or proroguing of the Vidhan Sabha of the State of Punjab.
- Whether the Governor was justified in seeking legal advice before summoning the Assembly for its Budget Session.
- Whether the Chief Minister was obligated to furnish the information sought by the Governor.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Governor’s duty to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers | Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers | Constitutional provisions and previous judgments clearly establish that the Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| Justification for seeking legal advice | Governor was not justified in seeking legal advice | The Governor was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers to summon the House for its Budget Session. |
| Chief Minister’s obligation to furnish information | Chief Minister is obligated to furnish the information sought by the Governor | Article 167(b) of the Constitution imposes a duty on the Chief Minister to provide information to the Governor. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
Cases
- Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [1974] 2 SCC 831 – The Supreme Court of India held that the Governor is a constitutional head and exercises powers on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except where the Constitution requires them to act in their discretion.
- Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [2016] 8 SCC 1 – The Supreme Court of India reiterated that the Governor’s power to summon the legislature is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 167 of the Constitution of India – This article specifies the duties of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor.
- Article 174 of the Constitution of India – This article deals with the power of the Governor to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the State Legislature.
Table of Authorities
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [1974] 2 SCC 831 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Established that the Governor is a constitutional head bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [2016] 8 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Reaffirmed that the Governor’s power to summon the legislature is to be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| Article 167 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Interpreted – Defined the duties of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor. |
| Article 174 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Interpreted – Clarified the Governor’s power to summon the State Legislature, emphasizing it must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Party | Submission | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab | Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the Vidhan Sabha. | Accepted – The Court held that the Governor is indeed bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
| State of Punjab | The Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly based on the Chief Minister’s tweet and letter was unconstitutional. | Accepted – The Court found that the Governor’s reasons for delaying the summoning of the assembly were not valid. |
| State of Punjab | The Governor’s action was a violation of the principles of parliamentary democracy. | Accepted – The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the principles of parliamentary democracy. |
| Governor of Punjab | The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister under Article 167(b) of the Constitution. | Accepted – The Court acknowledged the Governor’s right to seek information under Article 167(b). |
| Governor of Punjab | The Chief Minister’s tweet and letter were “patently unconstitutional” and “extremely derogatory,” justifying the Governor’s need to seek legal advice. | Partially Rejected – While acknowledging the tone of the CM’s communication was undesirable, the Court held that it did not justify the Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly. |
| Governor of Punjab | The Governor is not a mere rubber stamp and has a duty to ensure a just, fair, and honest administration. | Acknowledged – The Court recognized the Governor’s duty but clarified that this duty does not override the principle of acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Court relied on the following authorities to arrive at its decision:
- Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab [1974] 2 SCC 831: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the Governor is a constitutional head who generally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [2016] 8 SCC 1: This case was used to reinforce the principle that the Governor’s power to summon the legislature must be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of constitutional propriety and the need for constitutional functionaries to adhere to their specified roles and obligations. The Court was also concerned about the breakdown in communication between the Governor and the Chief Minister, which led to the invocation of its jurisdiction. The Court was keen to ensure that the constitutional duty of the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is fulfilled without delay. The Court also stressed that while the Chief Minister has a duty to furnish information to the Governor, the failure to do so does not justify the Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Obligation of Governor | 40% |
| Importance of Parliamentary Democracy | 30% |
| Need for Constitutional Decorum | 20% |
| Duty of Chief Minister to Furnish Information | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the Governor’s power to summon the assembly is not discretionary but must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court also noted that the Chief Minister’s failure to provide information did not justify the Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly.
The Court’s decision was that the Governor was bound to summon the Legislative Assembly on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Court also observed that both the Chief Minister and the Governor are constitutional functionaries who have specified roles and obligations. The Court emphasized that constitutional discourse must be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.
The Court provided the following reasons for its decision:
- The Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The power to summon the assembly is not a discretionary power of the Governor.
- The Chief Minister’s failure to provide information does not justify the Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly.
- Constitutional functionaries must conduct themselves with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “Under the Cabinet system of Government as embodied in our Constitution the Governor is the constitutional or formal head of the State and he exercises all his powers and functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers save in spheres where the Governor is required by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion.”
- “The authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion.”
- “The failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
✓ The Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the State Legislative Assembly.
✓ The Governor’s power to summon the assembly is not discretionary but must be exercised on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
✓ The Chief Minister is obligated to furnish information sought by the Governor under Article 167(b) of the Constitution.
✓ Constitutional functionaries must conduct themselves with decorum and mature statesmanship.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Governor to summon the Legislative Assembly for its Budget Session, which was already done before the final order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the State Legislative Assembly. This judgment reinforces the established position of law that the Governor is a constitutional head who generally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and it clarifies that the Governor cannot refuse to summon the assembly based on disagreements with the Chief Minister. This case does not change the previous position of law but rather reaffirms it.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab clarifies the constitutional duties of the Governor and the Chief Minister. The Court held that the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the State Legislative Assembly. While emphasizing the importance of the Chief Minister’s duty to provide information to the Governor, the Court made it clear that the failure to do so does not justify the Governor’s refusal to summon the assembly. The judgment reinforces the principles of parliamentary democracy and the need for constitutional functionaries to act with decorum and statesmanship.