LI Network
Published on: November 25, 2023 at 15:40 IST
The Supreme Court addressed the Punjab Government’s plea challenging the Governor’s inaction on four bills passed by the state legislature.
The court clarified that reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha, which had not been prorogued, is legally permissible and falls within the exclusive domain of the Speaker.
The Punjab Governor had withheld assent to the bills, claiming the June session, an extension of the budget session, was “bound to be illegal.”
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized that if the session had not been prorogued, reconvening the Vidhan Sabha was within legal bounds.
The judgment referred to Article 174 of the Constitution, distinguishing the powers to prorogue and dissolve, highlighting their distinct constitutional concepts.
It clarified the difference between a sitting and a session of the legislature.
The court underscored that Article 174(1) recognized the possibility of multiple sittings within one session, setting a maximum duration between sittings.
The judgment noted instances where the adjournment of the House sine die was not followed by prorogation, and sittings were reconvened by the Speaker.
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha expressly acknowledged the Speaker’s authority to reconvene a sitting adjourned sine die but not prorogued.
The court observed that similar provisions existed in the Rules of Procedure of State Legislatures for Rajasthan, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. It stated that allowing the Speaker to call a sitting after adjournment sine die was common practice in legislative bodies.
Emphasizing the distinction between adjournment sine die and prorogation, the court concluded that, in the present case, since the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on March 22, 2023, without prorogation, the Speaker had the authority to reconvene sittings within the same session.
Additionally, the court highlighted that under Article 122(2), the Speaker had the power to regulate procedure and conduct of business, with his decisions being final.
Therefore, the validity of adjourning the House sine die and later resuming sittings could not be questioned for procedural irregularities.
The judgment asserted that the Speaker, as the sole custodian of the House proceedings, had the legal authority to adjourn and reconvene the House. It concluded that the Governor, if withholding assent to a bill, must return it to the legislature for reconsideration.
The case, titled “The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr.,” was decided in W.P.(C) No. 1224/2023.
