SC seeks updated report on Punjab govt’s plea against governor over delay in nod to Bills

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit to indicate by Friday what action has been taken on the seven Bills pending with him awaiting clearance observing that governors should not start acting only after a petition is filed before the top court.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the Bhagwant Mann-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab opposing the delay by Purohit to grant his assent to four Bills passed by the assembly in June and three money Bills presented for his recommendation prior to its introduction in the House.

A Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, said: “Why do parties have to come to the Supreme Court? Governors must act before they approach the Supreme Court. This happened in another state also (referring to Telangana). Once the state approaches the Supreme Court, governors start acting.”

Also read: Punjab Police yet to arrest farmers who forced officials to burn stubble

Similar petitions have also been filed by Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments against similar delay by governors. For the Kerala government, senior advocate KK Venugopal mentioned the matter before the CJI-led bench for urgent listing, while the TN government’s petition is listed for hearing on November 10.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state along with advocate general Gurminder Singh, pointed out that the governor has objected to the manner of convening the session and has refused to grant assent on that ground. The advocate general stated that after filing of petition, the governor has given recommendation on presentation of two money Bills in the House.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the governor, informed the court that Purohit has taken “appropriate action” and he would like to place it before the court by Friday.

To this, the Bench said, “This court will be apprised of the action taken by the governor. Let the petition be listed on Friday.”

Singhvi said that Purohit wrote to Mann in July indicating that when the Vidhan Sabha last met in March, the session had to be prorogued and a new session convened in June for passing of the Bills. However, the state claimed that under the Vidhan Sabha rules, the session was adjourned sine die in March and three months later, the session again met to pass the Bills. The AAP government claimed that the Bills required urgent clearance as they pertain to fiscal subjects and gurdwara administration.

Mehta observed, “There are certain astonishing things happening in constitutional history. It has never happened in the history of our democracy that you don’t adjourn the House, call the House to abuse people and it is happening in two states.”

The Bench, also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, said: “All governors need to do a bit of soul-searching. They are not elected people but there is a bar on keeping money Bills for a certain period.”

The court said, “Why should parties be required to move the Supreme Court for convening the session? These are matters to be sorted out between the governor and the chief minister.”

At the same time, the court doubted on the manner of action conducted by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. “If there is a break of three months, do you not have to reconvene the session? Really speaking, your budget session has merged with the monsoon session. Is that permissible in the scheme of the Constitution? There is a little bit of soul-searching required from both sides.”

Similar situation in Telangana

Singhvi told the court that Rule 16 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha permits the Speaker to adjourn the House sine die and resume it on a later date. At the same time, he said that under Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor is bound to give consent on the Bills.

In April, the Supreme Court had dealt with a similar situation while taking up a petition by the Telangana government against the alleged inaction on Bills by governor Tamilisai Soundararajan. The top court said that Article 200 of the Constitution, proviso 1, states that “the governor may, as soon as possible, after the presentation of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a money Bill.”

The court’s decision stated that the expression “as soon as possible” has significant intent and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities. The court had clarified in that decision that this part of the order was meant for all constitutional authorities in general.

Running feud between Punjab governor, CM

The Punjab governor is involved in a running feud with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government led by chief minister Bhagwant Mann.

On November 1, Purohit gave his approval to two of the three Bills sent to him, days after he wrote to Mann, saying he would examine the proposed laws on merit before allowing those to be tabled in the assembly.

The governor’s approval is needed to table money Bills in the House.

Purohit has approved the Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2023.

However, in his earlier letter to the chief minister on October 19, the governor had withheld his approval to three money Bills.

Purohit has withheld his approval to the Punjab Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill, 2023 and the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill, 2023, which were to be tabled in the assembly during the October 20-21 session.

The governor had said the October 20-21 session, which was projected as an extension of the budget session, was “bound to be illegal” and any business conducted during it was “unlawful”. On October 20, the Punjab government had cut short its two-day session. (With PTI input)