Author: Alisha Fatima Safvi, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
Use Of Legal Jargon
Prorogation – Official conclusion of a legislative session by the Governor.
Sine Die Adjournment – Ending of an assembly session without deciding the date for the next one.
Assent – Governor’s formal agreement to a proposed law.
Aid and Advice – Constitutional requirement for the Governor to act on the recommendations of the State Cabinet.
Money Bill – A financial bill dealing exclusively with taxation, borrowings, or expenditure.
Discretionary Powers – Limited powers the Governor can exercise independently in special situations.
Reconvene – To resume a previously adjourned legislative meeting.
Titular Head – A head of the state with ceremonial powers, not executive control.
Legislative Proceedings – Activities and business undertaken during assembly sessions.
Constitutional Democracy – A democracy governed by a written constitution that restricts the powers of government.
Article 174(1) – Grants Governor power to summon and end assembly sessions.
Article 200 – Outlines the process for the Governor to either approve, return, or reserve bills for the President.
Speaker – The official who conducts assembly proceedings and manages its order.
Rules of Procedure – Guidelines laid out for the smooth running of the house.
Original Jurisdiction – Supreme Court’s authority to hear the case directly, without it being appealed from a lower court.
1. Name of the court:
In the supreme court of India civil original jurisdiction.
2. Coram:
Division Bench
CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
J. Manoj Misra
J. J.B. Pardiwala
3. Judgement delivered by:
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and concurring statement by J. Manoj Misra
And J.B. Pardiwala
4. Date of judgement:
November 10th, 2023.
5. Name of the parties:
State of Punjab/ CM of Punjab (Mr. Bhagwant Mann)
…petitioner(s)
Versus
Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab
Another party (whose specific identity would be mentioned in the
Case details) …respondent(s)
6. Sections involved:
Article 174(1) of the constitution: This article deals with the summoning and Prorogation of the houses of the state legislature by the governor.
Article 200: Creative interpretation of article 200 by Supreme court.
7. Facts of the case:
The governor of Punjab received a recommendation from the Council of Ministers of the Punjab’s government on 22nd February,2023 asking for the Punjab Vidhan Sabha to be called into session for its budget session, which is scheduled to start on march 3rd ,2023 under Article 174(1) of constitution.
A petition was filed with this court on the 25th of February,2023 regarding the governor’s unwillingness to comply, citing his need for legal counsel. The supreme court asked the governor to implement mature political governance in the state of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the governor of Punjab (2023) case.
The court ruled, “There was no need to obtain legal counsel regarding the conveying of the legislative assembly budget session. The governor was bound by the advice tendered to him by the council of minister”.
The speaker opened the assembly session, and after multiple bills were approved, they were sent to the governor for approval. The governor however, expressed his doubts about the validity and legality of those bills. Further stating that he was actively deciding whether to seek the legal opinion of the Attorney General of India or, by the constitution, “Reserve these bills for the consideration and consent of the President of India”.
The chief minister was asked by the governor to call a new Monsoon/winter session, claiming that the session in which those bills were passed for the governor’s assent was illegitimate.
Therefore, he did not publicly announce that he was refusing to sign the bills, which resulted in the filing of a petition in the state of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and others (2023) case.
Issues of the case:
The issue of the case of the state of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the governor of Punjab and others were as follow:
whether it is possible for the governor to the stall the passage of bills enacted by the state legislature
whether it is legal for the speaker of the Vidhan Sabha to call a session that has been adjournment but not prorogued back to order?
Arguments from:
Petitioner’s Argument:
The legislative assembly budget session convened on March 3rd ,2023 without prorogation. It was emphasized that the governor was not authorized to interpret the sine die adjournment as an assembly prorogation.
By her constitutional authority and the second provision of rule 16 of the Vidhan Sabha rules of procedure, the speaker called a special meeting assembly for june,2023. The speaker is solely responsible for enforcing the house’s procedural rules and business conduct regulations.
In concluding that the Vidhan Sabha’s June 2023 reconvening was unconstitutional, the governor, as the symbolic head of the state did not act within the bounds of his constitutional authority, voiding the Legislative business that was conducted on June 20,2023. The outcome of the speaker’s decision is to essentially render the laws that the legislative members overwhelmingly passed void.
Respondent’s Arguments:
After the adjournment of the budget session, the house had to be prorogued since rule 14A of the rules of procedure mandate that the Vidhan Sabha hold 3 Sessions- The Budget Session, The Monsoon Session and The Winter Session- The speaker was not permitted to continue the meeting until it was reconvened on June 19 and 20,2023. Thus, the speaker couldn’t continue The Budget session in June 2023.
With the 185 bills receiving the governor’s assent, there have been no previous delays. However, approval for 4 bills was denied because of concerns about sine die adjournment. Nevertheless, the Governor subsequently suggested that the Vidhan Sabha consider two of the three money bills.
The petitioners claim that the session held on June 19 and 20, 2023 was legitimate and they are requesting redress under article 32 of the constitution. This demonstrates Punjabis skepticism regarding the legitimacy of the session the governor would not object to handling the bills seeking assent if the court approves the valid adjournments for a reconvening in June 2023.
Judgement/Rationale:
The judgement took place keeping regarding the statements delivered by both the parties. The court stated its judgement regarding the Governor, the duties of the governor, interpreted Article 200, the power of the speaker, and how the jurisdiction will be exercised. The judgements are as follows:-
Concerning Governor
The real authority in a parliamentary system is held by elected officials, such as members of the legislative assembly or Parliament. They are in charge of drafting laws, creating policies and managing the operations of the government. The idea highlights the democratic aspect of governance, in which the power to rule rests with those chosen by the electorate.
The bench clarified that the governor, the De facto head of state, works with the “aid and advice” of the council of ministers, which is presided over by the cm. This indicates that the council of ministers serves as the governor’s guide and that the Governor, as an appointee of the president, is the titular head of the state. However, in certain areas constitution has entrusted the Governor with the exercise of discretionary power.
The bench of judges also interpreted Article 200 concerning withholding the case and under which circumstance a bill can be passed on to the president for recommendation.
According to the judgment- by the first provision of article 200, the governor may, as soon as feasible after receiving the bill for assent, return a bill- must not be a Money bill along with a request that the house or houses reconsider the bill or any of its specific provisions, especially the merits of introducing any amendments he may recommend. The supreme court emphasized that the governor cannot withhold the bill and must restore it to the assembly in its ruling. This ruling was based on the aforementioned provision of Article 200.
About the bills, the court made it clear not making a decision about how the governor should exercise his authority. But the Governor must act by article 200 of the Constitution.
Concerning Speaker
According to the ruling of the SC the speaker is permitted to lawfully reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it had adjourned sine die without prorogation. Additionally, the speaker has the authority to adjourn and reassemble the house in his capacity as the only keeper of the regards of the house’s proceedings. The position of speaker and deputy speaker of a legislative assembly are established by Article 178 of the constitution.
During the speaker’s term in office his choices regarding adjournment and prorogation- according to the ruling of the Supreme Court. Based on the constitutional validity of the house sitting held on June 19 and 20 2023, the court permitted the governor of Punjab to move on with making a decision regarding the bills which were sent or submitted for assent.
By holding some bills for the President’s consideration under the second provision of article 200, governors may impede state Legislation, albeit this issue has not yet Been resolved. The bench issued a warning arguing that a different interpretations of Article 200 would give the governor the power to effectively veto the legislative branch’s ability to carry out its duties as duly elected. The bench ruled that “such a course of action would be contrary to Fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary form of government.”
Case Review:
In the legal case state of Punjab v. Chief Secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023), the supreme court of India dealt with a dispute regarding the powers and duties of the governor of Punjab regarding the convening and approval of the State Legislative assembly. Of bills passed by the assembly. The case arose out of a recommendation by the council of ministers of the Punjab government to the Governor to convene the Punjab Vidhan Sabha by Article 174(1) of the constitution for the budget session scheduled to begin on 3 march 2023. The central issue was the governor’s refusal to comply with the recommendation, citing the need for legal guidance. This led to the filing of a petition in court on February 25, 2023. In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the principles of mature political governance and the constitutional duties of the governor. regarding the Governor’s authority and responsibility, the court clarified that while the governor acts with the & “Aid and Advice” of the Council of ministers, there are specific areas in which the Governor has discretionary powers. The interpretation of Article 200 was central to understanding the Governor’s power to withhold assent to bills and the circumstances under which bills may be submitted to the president for consideration. The Court clarified that under article 200, the governor can return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration, but is not allowed to withhold assent indefinitely. The governor is obliged to act within the parameters set out in Article 200 with an emphasis on the constitutional obligation of the governor to comply with the provisions of the constitution. regarding the role of the speaker, the court upheld the power of the speaker to lawfully reconvene the Vidhan Sabha and to adjourn and reconvene the house as the administrator of its proceedings. This reaffirmed the constitutional validity of some of the legislative steps taken by the president. In addition, the court warned against interpretations of article 200 that could give the Governor the ability to effectively veto the functions of the legislature, arguing that such moves would undermine the basic principles of a constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary system of government. In summary, the judgment in state of Punjab v. Chief secretary to the Governor of Punjab (2023) emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional principles and upheld the constitutional duties and limitations of the governor and the speaker. It clarified the powers of the governor about the passage of the law and emphasized the role of the speaker in the legislative process. In addition, the judgment warned against interpretations that could threaten the democratic functioning of the legislature. This case serves as an important precedent in defining the constitutional roles and responsibilities of key state actors within the Indian parliamentary system.
The Proof
Relevant Constitutional Articles:
Article 174(1): Cited to support the CM’s authority in calling the assembly.
Article 200: Interpreted to clarify the Governor’s powers and responsibilities regarding bill assent.
Article 178: Recognizes the Speaker and Deputy Speaker as the ones managing legislative sessions.
Article 32: The legal ground on which the petition was filed before the Supreme Court.
Assembly Rulebook:
Rule 14A: Specifies the required three sessions in a year – Budget, Monsoon, and Winter.
Rule 16 (Clause 2): Grants the Speaker discretion to call a session if the House isn’t formally ended.
Judicial Observations:
The Court reaffirmed that the Governor must act per the Council of Ministers’ advice.
Article 200 cannot be interpreted to allow indefinite withholding of a bill.
The Speaker’s action of reconvening the session without prorogation was constitutionally valid.
Conclusion
The State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor case (2023) is crucial in defining the constitutional balance between the Governor and elected state officials. The Supreme Court firmly reminded that the real power in a democracy rests with the elected representatives, not the symbolic head of the state.
The judgment stressed that the Governor cannot ignore or delay the advice of the Council of Ministers or indefinitely postpone assent to bills. Additionally, it validated the Speaker’s role in managing the assembly, including calling it back after adjournment unless it has been formally ended.
The Court cautioned that using Article 200 to block the legislature’s work would damage the essence of parliamentary democracy. In essence, this ruling strengthens constitutional discipline, ensures democratic accountability, and clearly limits the Governor’s role to a constitutional figurehead with specific duties—not a parallel decision-making authority.
FAQS
Q1.Can a Governor refuse to summon the Assembly?
A: No, the Governor is constitutionally bound to act on the Cabinet’s advice and cannot reject a request to convene the House.
Q2.What is meant by sine die adjournment?
A: It means suspending the House’s proceedings indefinitely without scheduling a future date.
Q3.Is the Governor allowed to withhold assent to a bill forever?
A: No, the Constitution does not permit the Governor to delay assent indefinitely. He must act in a reasonable timeframe.
Q4. Is the Speaker authorized to reconvene the House without the Governor?
A: Yes, if the House is adjourned but not formally ended (not prorogued), the Speaker has the authority to recall it.
Q5.Why is Article 200 important in this dispute?
A: It determines what the Governor can do after a bill is passed—either approve, return it for reconsideration, or forward it to the President.
Q6.Does the Governor have complete freedom in his decisions?
A: No, he must largely act under the Cabinet’s advice, except in very few matters where discretion is allowed.
