STATE OF PUNJAB VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Principal Secretary to Governor of Punjab ( Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224/2023 ) held that if the Governor withholds the assent to the Bill under Article 200, the Governor must mandatorily send the bill back for reconsideration to the State Legislature “as soon as possible”.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Sixteenth Vidhan Sabha was summoned on 3rd March, 2023. The Speaker adjourned the session sine die on 22nd March, 2023. The Speaker reconvened the session on 19th and 23rd June, 2023. During Course of the session, the Vidhan Sabha passed four bills namely The Sikh Gurudwara Amendment Bill, 2023, Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) (Amendment) Bill, 2023, Punjab Universities Law (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023. No Action was taken by the Governor on these bills. Sessions of Vidhan Sabha were sought to be reconvened since three money bills were to be introduced. The recommendation of the Governor was required in terms of the Provision of Article 207 (1) of the Constitution for the introduction of the Bill in Vidhan Sabha.
The Governor stated that he would take action according to law after the legality of the Vidhan Sabha session which was held on 19th and 20th June, 2023 is examined. He was considering whether to receive legal opinion from Attorney General or reserve the bill for consideration of the President. By another communication Governor communicated that the calling of session was patently illegal. The Governor advised to call fresh Monsoon/Winter Session.
Aggrieved by inaction of Governor, the State of Punjab approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court observed that in a Parliamentary Form of Democracy real power vests in elective representatives of people. The Governor as an appointee of the President is titular head of State. The fundamental principle of the Constitutional Law which has been consistently followed since the Constitution was adopted is that the Governor acts on the “aid and advise” of the Council of Ministers, save and except in those areas where the Constitution has entrusted the exercise of discretionary power to the Governor.
The Supreme Court noted that when a bill is presented under Article 200 to the Governor, three options are available before Governor – (i) either he assents the bill, (ii) he withholds the bill and (iii) he reserves the bill for consideration of the President. The proviso to Article 200 envisages that, as soon as possible, after the presentation to the Governor of the Bill for assent he may return a Bill, which is not a Money Bill, together with a message requesting that the House or Houses would reconsider the Bill or any specific provisions of the Bill and in particular consider the desirability of introducing such amendments which he may recommend. When a Bill is returned by the Governor, the legislature of the State is duty bound to reconsider the Bill. After the Bill is again passed by the legislature either with or without amendment and is presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom.
The Supreme Court observed that a proviso may fulfil the purpose of being an exception. Sometimes, a proviso may be in the form of an explanation or in addition to the substantive provision of a statute. The first proviso allows an ordinary bill to be returned to the legislature for reconsideration. But the concluding part of the First proviso stipulates that if a bill is again passed by Legislature either with or without amendments and sent back to the Governor, the Governor shall not withhold assent. The concluding phrase “shall not withhold assent therefrom” is a clear indicator that the exercise of power under the first proviso is relatable to the withholding of the assent by Governor to the Bill in first instance. The role ascribed by the First Proviso is recommendatory is nature.
The Supreme Court held that if the Governor withholds the assent to the Bill under the substantive part of Article 200, the Governor must mandatorily follow the course of action which is indicated in the first proviso of communicating to the State Legislature “as soon as possible” a message warranting the reconsideration of the Bill.
The Supreme Court observed that the expression “as soon as possible” is significant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition. Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill for indeterminate periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression, Constitutional language is not a surplusage.
The Supreme Court held that the Governor of Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature.
The Supreme Court also held that the Constitution and established practice distinguish between adjournment sine die and prorogation of the session of the House. In this case, Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on 22nd March, 2023 without prorogation. Therefore, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene the sitting of the House within the same session.
The Supreme Court held that there is no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the session of the Vidhan Sabha which was held on 19th June, 2023, 20th June, 2023, and 20th October, 2023. 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.
_______________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
