NEW DELHI, Nov 24: The Supreme Court has ruled that while the unelected Head of State is vested with constitutional powers, those powers cannot be used to obstruct state legislatures’ normal legislative process. Specifically, the court stressed that governors cannot be allowed to hold bills for an indefinite period of time without taking any action. A bench made up of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that unrestricted discretion granted to the Governor would “virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature” and that such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance.
“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 state legislatures.
“Consequently, if the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the bill to the state legislature for reconsideration,” the bench said in its November 10 judgment, passed on a plea by the Punjab Government.
The bench said if the Governor decides to withhold assent to a bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.The sensible course of action is to follow the directive in the first proviso and send the bill back to the state legislature for reconsideration if the governor chooses to withhold assent under the substantive portion of Article 200. It stated, “In other words, the consequential course of action to be adopted must be read together with the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200.” According to the highest court, democracy and federalism—two components of the fundamental system—are inseparable.One feature imperils the other when it is diminished. For our citizens’ aspirations and fundamental freedoms to be realised, democracy and federalism must be fine-tuned. It stated, “The mechanism of constitutional governance is harmed whenever one prong of the tuning fork is damaged.” The governor’s authority cannot be used to “thwart the normal course of lawmaking,” according to the supreme court, which ordered Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit to make a decision on the bills approved by the legislative assembly during its “constitutionally valid” session on June 19 and 20.The top court addressed the Punjab AAP government’s argument that the governor was refusing to sign four assembly-passed bills in its ruling from November 10, which was posted online on Thursday night. A judicial declaration that the assembly session that took place on June 19 and 20 was “legal and that the business transacted by the House is valid” was another request made by the Punjab government. The highest court ruled that the assembly sessions were legitimate and that the governor was not permitted to access this matter following the Speaker’s decision.“We believe that there is no legitimate constitutional basis to question the legitimacy of the Vidhan Sabha session that convened on June 19, 2023, June 20, 2023, and October 20, 2023. Any attempt to question the legitimacy of the legislative session would be fraught with serious dangers to democracy.” The CJI, who authored the bench’s decision, stated that the speaker, who is acknowledged as a protector of the House’s privileges and as the legally recognised representative of the House, was acting appropriately when he adjourned the House sine die.It stated that the governor is not permitted by the constitution to question the legitimacy of the House session, and that the legislative assembly is made up of duly elected MLAs and is led by the speaker. Because the House met on June 19, 20, and October 20, 2023, in accordance with the constitution, “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,” the statement read. The highest court further made it clear that it has not voiced any opinions about how the governor will use his authority in relation to the bills that have been presented to him. “In a parliamentary democracy, the people’s elected representatives hold the real power. Members of the State Legislature and, if applicable, Parliament make up the governments both at the federal level and in the states. In a cabinet-style government, the legislature is the government’s supervisory body and its members are answerable to it. The Governor is the nominal head of state since they are the President’s appointee, according to the ruling.Purohit and the Punjabi government of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), headed by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, are embroiled in a protracted dispute. After writing to Mann a few days earlier, in which he promised to review all proposed laws on their merits before allowing them to be tabled in the assembly, Purohit approved two of the three bills that were sent to him on November 1. It takes the governor’s consent to introduce money bills in the House. The Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2023 have been approved by Purohit.The governor’s signature is still pending on four other bills: the Punjab Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023; the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023; the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023; and the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Bill, 2023. The Punjab Assembly met on June 19–20 and approved these bills. Such an extended session was deemed “patently illegal” by the governor.