Governors Must Act: Supreme Court On Punjab Govt's Plea Over Pending Bills

The Supreme Court questioned on Monday (6 November) why states needed to resort to legal action against Governors for holding bills pending, emphasising that "Governors must act" before such matters reach the courts.

A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, was hearing a plea from the Punjab government, which claimed that Governor Banwarilal Purohit had left seven Bills pending.

CJI Chandrachud noted a similar situation in the case of Telangana and expressed his concern about why political parties had to approach the Supreme Court. He stressed that Governors should take action proactively, and this pattern of waiting for court intervention needed to cease.

The court scheduled the next hearing for 10 November and requested Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Governor Purohit, to provide information on the actions taken by the Governor by that date, Indian Express reported.

CJI Chandrachud also called for some introspection through "soul searching" by both Chief Ministers and Governors to resolve such issues.

"Governors also cannot be oblivious to the fact that they are not elected representatives of the people. The Governor can either withhold his assent, refer it to the President, or they are duty bound they can return it once. And particularly on money bills,” said CJI Chandrachud.

Representing the Punjab government, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi described the situation as highly unusual, highlighting that the Governor had held back seven bills, including fiscal and affiliated college bills.

He noted the peculiar argument that the session had been adjourned sine die, requiring a fresh session to commence. However, he emphasised that the session had only been prorogued, granting the Speaker the authority to reconvene it.

Singhvi further pointed out that such an occurrence had never been witnessed in constitutional history. Prorogation, a widely recognised term, enables the Speaker to reconvene the session. He also referenced Article 200, which mandates the Governor to provide assent to a bill and prohibits the withholding of such assent.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “The Governor has intimated that all bills have been appropriately dealt with and decisions taken. If that would have been stated, possible petitions would not have been required”, and agreed the court should be informed about the action taken by the Governor.

“One thing I would agree with Singhvi is that there are certain astonishing things happening in constitutional history…keeping the Assembly alive without any proroguing or adjourning so that whenever you want to abuse people, you gather and abuse, claim privilege etc,” said Mehta.

“It’s astonishing. Never happened in the history of Indian democracy. Happening in two states. I will place before Your Lordships the position that this is unnecessary litigation,” he added.