LI Network
Published on: November 06, 2023 at 12:45 IST
The Supreme Court expressed its dismay at the recurring practice of State Governments having to seek court intervention to prompt Governors to make decisions on legislative bills. The court voiced its disapproval of this trend and called for its cessation.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made these remarks during a hearing of a writ petition filed by the State of Punjab, which was dissatisfied with Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s inaction on seven bills.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the bench during the hearing that the Governor had taken “appropriate decisions” on the bills and committed to providing details by Friday.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud pointed out the problematic situation in which Governors only act on bills after they have become the subject of a court case. He cited a similar instance in the State of Telangana, where the Governor’s response to pending bills was only triggered after the government filed a writ petition.
The Chief Justice emphasized that Governors should be aware that they are not elected authorities.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of Punjab, expressed that the delay in the Governor’s consideration of important bills, including those pertaining to fiscal management, GST amendments, and Gurudwara management, had negatively impacted governance. He mentioned that the Governor had postponed the bill considerations due to alleged irregularities.
The Chief Justice also questioned the assembly’s scheduling, noting that it was adjourned sine die in March but reconvened in June. He raised concerns about whether such a reconvening was consistent with the constitutional framework.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that such a practice was contrary to the Constitutional scheme, as an adjourned house could not be reconvened in this manner. He suggested that reconvening often occurred for members to “get together and abuse people and claim privilege.”
The Chief Justice concluded by urging both the government and the Governor to engage in introspection, emphasizing the need to resolve such issues through communication between the Chief Minister and the Governor.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal mentioned a similar petition filed by the State of Kerala against its Governor, who had also delayed action on bills.
The bench agreed to hear petitions from Kerala and Tamil Nadu on Friday, alongside Punjab’s petition. Solicitor General agreed to file a status report on Punjab’s case, indicating that the Governor had given assent to two pending bills out of seven.
Background:
The Punjab Governor had refrained from giving his assent to several bills, including those related to fiscal responsibility, GST, and other legislative matters. These bills were passed by the Punjab Assembly but were held in abeyance by the Governor, citing concerns about the legality of the legislative sessions during which they were passed.
On November 1, the Governor granted assent to some of these bills, while others remained pending. The approval of the Governor is crucial for these bills to be presented in the Assembly as money Bills.