COURT: Supreme Court of India
DECLARED ON: 10th November 2023
APPEALED FROM: Original Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
JUDGES: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra.
CITATION: 2023 INSC 1017; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224 of 2023.
PETITIONER: State of Punjab.
LEGAL COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER:
- Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab
- Mr. Shadan Farasat, Additional Advocate General
RESPONDENTS: Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab & Another.
LEGAL COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
- Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India
- Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Advocate
FACTS:
1. The Governor of Punjab summoned the Budget Session of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 3 March 2023 on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
2. The Budget Session was adjourned sine die by the Speaker on 22 March 2023, but it was not prorogued by the Governor.
3. The Supreme Court, in an earlier case concerning the summoning of the Assembly, observed that the Governor should act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and that constitutional functionaries must act in accordance with constitutional principles.
4. Invoking the second proviso to Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, the Speaker reconvened the Assembly on 19 and 20 June 2023, treating it as a continuation of the Budget Session. During the sitting on 19–20 June 2023, the Punjab Vidhan Sabha passed four Bills.
5. The Governor did not take any action on these four Bills and neither assented to nor returned them.
6. Subsequently, the Government sought to reconvene the Assembly on 19–20 October 2023 to introduce three Money Bills, for which the Governor’s recommendation was constitutionally required.
7. The Governor questioned the legality and validity of the June sittings, contending that the Budget Session had ended and that the Speaker could not reconvene it without a fresh summons from the Governor.
8. The Governor stated that he was considering obtaining legal opinion and even suggested reserving the Bills for the consideration of the President.
9. The Governor addressed communications to the Chief Minister asserting that the June sittings were patently illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently withheld approval for the proposed October sitting.
10. Importantly, the Governor did not issue any formal public notification withholding assent to the Bills.
11. Aggrieved by the Governor’s inaction, the State of Punjab filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution [1]before the Supreme Court.
12. The State sought:
- A declaration that the sittings held on 19 and 20 June 2023 were legal and valid;
- A declaration that the business transacted during those sittings was valid; and
- A direction requiring the Governor to act on the Bills pending before him.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Issue 1: Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature?
Issue 2: Whether the Speaker can reconvene a session that has been adjourned sine die but not prorogued?
CONTENTIONS
LEGAL COUNSEL OF PETITIONER:
Counsel: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi
1. The June sitting was a continuation of the Budget Session.
The petitioner argued that the Punjab Legislative Assembly had merely been adjourned sine die and had not been prorogued by the Governor under Article 174.[2] Since the session had not formally ended, the Speaker was competent to reconvene the House in June 2023.
2. The Speaker possessed the authority to reconvene the Assembly.
Relying upon the Second Proviso to Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules, [3]the petitioner contended that the Speaker could summon the House again after an adjournment sine die and that no fresh summoning by the Governor was necessary.
3. The Governor could not interfere in legislative procedure.
The petitioner submitted that the Governor’s objection to the validity of the June sitting amounted to interference in the internal functioning of the Legislature, which is prohibited by Article 212 of the Constitution.[4] Questions concerning legislative procedure fall exclusively within the domain of the House and its Speaker.
4. The Governor is ordinarily bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Dr. Singhvi argued that under the scheme of Articles 163 and 200[5], the Governor acts as a constitutional head and cannot indefinitely withhold action on Bills passed by the Legislature.
5. The Governor’s inaction frustrated representative democracy.
The petitioner contended that by refusing to act on the Bills passed by an elected Assembly, the Governor effectively negated the democratic mandate of the Legislature and acted contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy and constitutional morality.
LEGAL COUNSEL OF RESPONDENT:
1. The Budget Session could not be continued indefinitely.
The respondents argued that once the business of the Budget Session had concluded, the session ought to have been prorogued, and the June sitting could not legally be treated as its continuation.
2. Punjab follows three distinct legislative sessions.
Relying upon Rule 14A of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Rules,[6] the respondents contended that the Assembly ordinarily has separate Budget, Monsoon and Winter Sessions. Therefore, the June meeting could not be regarded as a continuation of the Budget Session.
3. The Governor was justified in questioning the legality of the session.
The respondents maintained that the Governor’s reservations were not against the Bills themselves but against the legality of the proceedings in which those Bills had been passed.
4. The State itself acknowledged uncertainty regarding the June sitting.
It was argued that the very fact that the State approached the Supreme Court seeking a declaration validating the June session demonstrated that the legality of the proceedings was doubtful.
5. The Governor would consider the Bills if the Court upheld the June session.
The respondents submitted that if the Supreme Court declared the June sitting constitutionally valid, there would be no impediment to the Governor considering the Bills in accordance with the Constitution.
RATIONALE OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court, speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI, upheld the constitutional validity of the June 2023 sitting of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and gave the following reasons:
1. Adjournment Sine Die is Different from Prorogation
The Court emphasised that an adjournment sine die merely suspends the sitting of the House without terminating the session, whereas prorogation formally ends a session and can only be done by the Governor under Article 174(2)(a)[7]. Since the Budget Session had only been adjourned and was never prorogued, it legally continued to exist.
2. The Speaker Possessed the Authority to Reconvene the House
The Court held that under the Second Proviso to Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha [8]Rules, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene a sitting of the Assembly after it had been adjourned sine die. Consequently, the June sitting was constitutionally valid and did not require a fresh summons from the Governor.
3. The Governor Cannot Exercise an Absolute or Independent Discretion
The Court reiterated that India follows a parliamentary form of government, in which the Governor is a constitutional head who ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Constitution does not confer upon the Governor a general discretionary power to obstruct or delay legislative functioning.
4. The Governor Cannot Create a Constitutional Deadlock
The Court observed that the Governor’s prolonged inaction on Bills passed by the Legislature had the effect of frustrating the legislative process and disrupting democratic governance. Constitutional authorities must act in a manner that facilitates, rather than obstructs, the functioning of representative institutions.
5. The Governor Cannot Sit Over Bills Indefinitely
Interpreting Article 200, the Court held that the Governor is required to act on Bills presented to him and cannot exercise a pocket veto by withholding action for an indefinite period. Such conduct would be contrary to the principles of constitutional accountability and responsible government.
6. The Internal Proceedings of the Legislature Enjoy Constitutional Protection
Relying on Article 212, the Court held that procedural matters concerning the functioning of the Legislative Assembly are ordinarily immune from external interference. The Governor could not invalidate the proceedings of the House merely because he disagreed with the manner in which the Assembly had been reconvened.
7. Constitutional Functionaries Must Act in Accordance with Constitutional Morality
The Court stressed that all constitutional authorities are bound by the principles of constitutional morality, federalism, and parliamentary democracy. The Governor’s powers must be exercised in a manner that preserves democratic governance and respects the will of the elected Legislature.
DEFECTS OF LAW
1. Absence of a Mandatory Time Limit under Article 200
While the Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills, it failed to prescribe a definite constitutional time frame for the Governor to act. As a result, future Governors may still delay assent, leading to similar constitutional disputes.
2. Ambiguity in the Scope of the Governor’s Discretion
The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor ordinarily acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, it did not clearly define the exceptional circumstances in which the Governor may exercise discretionary powers, leaving room for conflicting interpretations in future cases.
3. Possibility of Misuse of the Speaker’s Power
By recognising the Speaker’s authority to reconvene an Assembly that was only adjourned sine die, the Court did not lay down any reasonable limits on the duration of such a continuation. This may enable future governments to prolong a legislative session without seeking a fresh summons from the Governor, potentially upsetting the constitutional balance.
CONCLUSION AND INFLUENCE OF THE CASE:
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab reaffirmed the principles of parliamentary democracy, federalism, and constitutional morality. The Court held that an adjournment sine die does not terminate a legislative session and that the Governor cannot indefinitely delay action on Bills passed by the Legislature. The judgment clarified the constitutional position of the Governor and protected the autonomy of elected legislatures from unnecessary interference.
The judgment was largely welcomed by constitutional scholars and legal commentators as a significant step towards preventing constitutional deadlocks between Governors and State Governments. It sparked discussions on the need to prescribe a time limit under Article 200 and to clearly define the scope of the Governor’s discretionary powers. Today, the case stands as an important precedent on gubernatorial powers, legislative autonomy, and the functioning of India’s parliamentary democracy, and continues to influence constitutional debates and judicial interpretation.
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 32.
[2]INDIA CONST. art. 174.
[3] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha r. 16, second proviso.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 212.
[5] INDIA CONST. arts. 163, 200.
[6] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha r. 14A.
[7] INDIA CONST. art. 174(2)(a).
[8] Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha r. 16, second proviso.