Punjab Governor cannot thwart lawmaking by legislature or cast doubts on validity of sessions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that a Govenor is only a symbolic head of a state, and cannot thwart the lawmaking powers of legislatures [State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and anr].A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra held that there was no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the sessions of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha held on June 19, June 20 and October 20, 2023."Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor...We are, therefore, of the view that the Governor of Punjab must now 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 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023 and 20 October 2023 was constitutionally valid."The Court made it clear that a Governor cannot use his/her constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills."The Governor, as a guiding statesman, 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 belongs to the legislature alone.".The judgment cautioned against 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."Any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the legislature would be replete with grave perils to democracy. The Speaker who has been recognized to be a guardian of the privileges of the House and the constitutionally recognized authority who represents the House, was acting well within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die.".On the expression "as soon as possible" in Article 200 of the Constitution, which mandates a Governor to either give his assent to a bill or return it to the legislature expeditiously, the Court held,"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. Constitutional language is not surplusage...The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever.".Thus, the Governor cannot be allowed to 'virtually veto' the functioning of the elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse."Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance," the Court added..The Supreme Court had on November 10 ordered Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit to decide on the bills submitted before him by the State legislature for his assent..Governor Purohit and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government have been at loggerheads over the extended Budget Session that was held between March 3 and March 22.While a two-day special session was held in June, another session called on October 20 and 21 was cut short after Purohit 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 the Governor. In this backdrop, the Punjab government approached the Supreme Court for relief.The State government urged the top court to declare that the legislative assembly sessions called in June and October were legal and that the business carried out during these sessions was legal.Meanwhile, the three money bills pending before the Governor were cleared for introduction earlier this month, after the filing of the petition before the top court..The trend of acrimony over delayed assent to bills is on the rise, with the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu also moving the Supreme Court in this regard recently..[Read judgment]