In a pivotal decision outlining the boundaries of gubernatorial authority, the Supreme Court, on Friday (November 10), asserted that Governors cannot withhold assent to bills based on doubts about the legitimacy of the legislative session in which they were approved. The judgment emphasizes constraints on gubernatorial powers, emphasizing that questioning the validity of the assembly session does not justify withholding approval for bills. This ruling establishes a clear precedent, underscoring the separation of powers and discouraging Governors from raising concerns about the assembly session's validity as grounds for withholding assent to legislative measures.
The Court declared that Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit must make a decision on the four bills awaiting his assent. The Governor had previously withheld approval, casting doubt on the validity of the June session of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha in which the bills were passed
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, categorically declared the validity of the June Session of the Punjab Assembly. They asserted that the Speaker had the authority to adjourn the March 2023 budget session instead of proroguing it, and subsequently reconvening the session in June.
Casting doubt on the legislative session poses significant threats to democracy. The Speaker, acknowledged as the guardian of house privileges, acted within his jurisdiction by adjourning the house sine die.
The governor does not have a constitutional option to question the validity of the house session. The legislative assembly is composed of duly elected members of the legislature.
The bench stated that the Governor of Punjab should now decide on the bills submitted for assent, considering that the session held on 19-20 June 2023 was constitutionally valid.
The Court noted that in a parliamentary democracy, true power lies with the elected representatives, while the Governor, appointed by the President, serves as the titular head of the State.
The bench further noted that the Speaker's authority to adjourn the session should not be misused to indefinitely suspend the house. It emphasized the necessity of three sessions per year, preventing the extension of a single session indefinitely.
The bench also documented the assurance from Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State, stating that the Chief Minister would advise the Speaker to convene the winter session of the state legislative assembly promptly.
In the initial statements, the representative for the Secretary to the Governor of the State of Punjab argued that the Governor had retained four bills pending due to a disagreement concerning the legitimacy of the sessions in which they were approved. The assertion highlighted the State Legislature's obligation to conduct three sessions—Budget, Monsoon, and Winter Sessions. The representative contended that the Budget Session, slated to conclude in March, was prolonged, with sessions held in June and October. Instead of formally proroguing the Budget Session, it was adjourned, and the same session resumed in June. This procedural maneuver negated the requirement for the Governor to summon a fresh session. It's noteworthy that the Governor convened the Budget Session in March only after the State Government approached the Supreme Court, underscoring the unique circumstances surrounding the session timeline.
TAGS: Governor Pending bills Session validity State Legislature Budget Session Monsoon Session Winter Session Adjournment Proroguing
