The Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor was only a symbolic head of a state, who could not thwart the lawmaking powers of legislatures.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra recently held that if a Governor decided to withhold assent to a Bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.
The clarification by the Court holds significance in view of Article 200 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state what should be the next course of action after a Governor withholds assent for a Bill.
Noting that there was no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of sessions of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha held on June 19, June 20 and October 20, 2023, the Apex Court observed that casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House was not a constitutional option open to the Governor.
It directed the Governor of Punjab to proceed to take a decision on the Bills, which have been submitted for assent on the basis that the sitting of the House which was conducted on June 19, June 20 and October 20, 2023 was constitutionally valid.
Calling the Governor a guiding statesman, the Bench said he/she cannot use his/her constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills.
It noted that a Governor may recommend reconsideration of the entirety of the Bill or any part thereof and even indicate the desirability of introducing amendments. However, the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the advice of the Governor as contained in the message belonged to the legislature alone.
The Bench warned that any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the legislature would be replete with grave perils to democracy. It said casting doubt on the power of the Punjab Assembly Speaker to convene a special session in continuation of an earlier one that was not prorogued, but adjourned indefinitely, was not correct.
As per the Apex Court, the Speaker, who has been recognised to be a guardian of privileges of the House and the constitutionally recognised authority representing the House, was acting well within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die.
Regarding the expression ‘as soon as possible’ in Article 200 of the Constitution, which mandated a Governor to either give his assent to a bill or return it to the legislature expeditiously, the Court held that the expression was significant as it conveyed a constitutional imperative of expedition.
Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate periods was a course of action inconsistent with the expression. The Constitutional language was not surplusage. The Governor could not be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever, it added.
It said the Governor could not be allowed to ‘virtually veto’ the functioning of the elected legislature by simply declaring that assent was withheld without any further recourse.
It noted that such a course of action would be contrary to the fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance.
On November 10, the Apex Court had directed Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit to decide on the bills submitted before him by the State legislature for his assent.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab has been at loggerheads with Governor Purohit over the extended Budget Session, which was held between March 3 and 22 this year.
While a two-day special session was held in June, another session called on October 20 and 21 was cut short after the Governor called it illegal and withheld approvals for the introduction of three money bills.
The four bills passed during the special session held in June have also not been approved by Governor Purohit. The Punjab government had moved the Supreme Court against the Governor in this connection.