Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJABversusPRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: 2023 INSC 1017
Decided: 10 November 2023
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: D Y CHANDRACHUD

Holding

The Governor, as a symbolic head, cannot withhold assent without following the first proviso of Article 200, and the Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction to reconvene an adjourned (sine die) session absent prorogation.

Summary

The State of Punjab challenged the Governor of Punjab for refusing to assent to four Bills passed by the Vidhan Sabha and for questioning the legality of sessions reconvened after an adjournment sine die. The petition also sought a declaration that the June and October 2023 sessions were valid and that the Governor must act on the pending Bills. The Court examined whether the Governor, as a symbolic head, can withhold assent without following the first proviso of Article 200 and whether the Speaker can reconvene a House that has been adjourned but not prorogued. It held that the Governor must act promptly, remit the Bill for reconsideration under the first proviso, and cannot veto legislation, while the Speaker has exclusive authority to reconvene an adjourned session under Rule 16. Consequently, the Court declared the sessions constitutionally valid, ordered the Governor to decide on the Bills in accordance with Article 200, and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature
Whether the Speaker may reconvene a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha that has been adjourned but not prorogued

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 168, s. Article 174(1), s. Article 174(2), s. Article 178, s. Article 199, s. Article 200, s. Article 207, s. Article 208, s. Article 212

Subjects

Governor's assentArticle 200Legislative procedureAdjournment vs prorogationSpeaker's powersState legislatureConstitutional lawParliamentary democracyWrit petition under Article 32Vidhan Sabha session validity

Judgment

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 777 : 2023 INSC 1017

CASE DETAILS

STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB
AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 10, 2023
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]

HEADNOTES

Issue for consideration: (i) Whether the Governor can withhold action
on Bills which have been passed by the State Legislature; (ii) Whether it is
permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha
session which has been adjourned but has not been prorogued.
Constitution of India – Art. 200 – The Governor is a symbolic head
and cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature:
Held: The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted
with certain constitutional powers – However, this power cannot be
used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures
– Consequently, if the Governor decides to withhold assent under the
substantive part of Art. 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the
course indicated in the ﬁrst proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature
for reconsideration – In other words, the power to withhold assent under the
substantive part of Art. 200 must be read together with the consequential
course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the ﬁrst proviso – If
the ﬁrst proviso is not read in juxtaposition to the power to withhold assent
conferred by the substantive part of Art. 200, the Governor as the unelected
Head of State would be in a position to virtually veto the functioning of the
legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that
assent is withheld without any further recourse – Such a course of action
would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy
777
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance – Therefore, when the
Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Art. 200,
the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in
the ﬁrst proviso – The Governor is u/Art. 168 a part of the legislature and
is bound by the constitutional regime – In the instant case, the Governor of
Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the
State Legislature and must act “as soon as possible” – In any event, it was
legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the Vidhan Sabha because
(a) there is a distinction between adjournment and prorogation; and (b) the
Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction over regulating the procedure of the
House. [Paras 25, 28]
Constitution of India – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly)
– r.16 – Reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has not been
prorogued is permissible in law and is within the exclusive domain of
the Speaker:
Held: Rule 16 indicates that the Vidhan Sabha may be adjourned by
its own order from time to time – This is however subject to the provisions
of the Constitution and the Rules – In terms of the ﬁrst proviso, a motion for
adjournment either to a day or sine die requires consultation with the Speaker
– Signiﬁcantly, in terms of the second proviso, the Speaker is empowered
in public interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha earlier than the date
to which it has been adjourned or at any time after it has been adjourned
sine die – So, it is clear that the Rules of Procedure expressly recognize a
situation where the Speaker reconvenes a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which
has been adjourned sine die but not prorogued – The provision empowering
the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha on any date after
it has been adjourned sine die is not unique to the Rules of Procedure of
the Punjab Vidhan Sabha – A review of the Rules of Procedure of State
Legislatures for various states indicates that almost all of them contain an
identical or similar provision – Therefore, it was legally permissible for the
Speaker to reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned
sine die without prorogation – Further, the Speaker was empowered as the
sole custodian of the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene
the House. [Paras 34, 35, 41]
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR 779
OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Constitution of India – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly)
– The dispute in the present case essentially bears upon the Governor
having detained four Bills which were passed by the Vidhan Sabha on
20.06.2023:
Held: There is no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the
validity of the session of the Vidhan Sabha which was held on 19.06.2023,
20.06.2023 and 20.10.2023 – Any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the
legislature would be replete with grave perils to democracy – The Speaker
who has been recognized to be a guardian of the privileges of the House
and the constitutionally recognized authority who represents the House, was
acting well within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die – The
re-convening of the House was within the ambit of Rule 16 of the Rules of
Procedure – Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not
a constitutional option open to the Governor – The Legislative Assembly
comprises of duly elected Members of the Legislature – During the tenure of
the Assembly, the House is governed by the decisions which are taken by the
Speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation – Therefore, this Court
is of the considered view that the Governor of Punjab must now proceed
to take a decision on the Bills which have been submitted for assent on the
basis that the sitting of the House which was conducted on 19.06.2023,
20.06.2023 and 20.10.2023 was constitutionally valid. [Para 44]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India and Others [2010] 3 SCR 1059 :
(2010) 4 SCC 1; SR Bommai v. Union of India [1994] 2 SCR 644 : (1994)
3 SCC 1 – followed.
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR 814 :(1974) 2 SCC
831; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India [2018] 7 SCR 1 : (2018) 8 SCC
501 – relied on.
State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab Writ
Petition (Civil) No 302 of 2023; State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her
Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana & Anr WP(C)
No. 333 of 2023 – referred to.
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224
of 2023.
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
Appearances:
Shadan Farasat, AAG, Gurminder Singh, AG/Sr. Adv., Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Amit Bhandari, Ms. Natasha
Maheshwari, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Adv., Abhinav Mukerji, Mrs.
Bihu Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

JUDGMENT
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
Table of Contents*
I. Factual background ............................................................... 3
II. Submissions ............................................................................ 7
III. Analysis .............................................................................. 9
A. The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot
withhold action on Bills passed by the
State Legislature ............................................................ 9
B. Reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which
has not been prorogued is permissible in law and is
within the exclusive domain of the Speaker .............. 18

*Ed. Note: The pagination as per the original Judgment.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 781
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

1. Distinction between adjournment and prorogation .. 18
2. Exclusive domain of the Speaker to regulate the
procedure of the House ................................................. 23
IV. Conclusion ............................................................................ 26

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
has been invoked by the State of Punjab. The Government of Punjab is
aggrieved on the ground that the Governor did not (i) assent to four Bills
which were passed by the Vidhan Sabha nor have they been returned; and
(ii) furnish a recommendation for the introduction of certain Money Bills
in the Vidhan Sabha.
I. Factual background
2. On 22 February 2023, the Council of Ministers of the Government of
Punjab forwarded a recommendation to the Governor of Punjab seeking the
summoning of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session commencing
on 3 March 2023. The Governor’s refusal to do so, on the ground that he
was seeking legal advice, led to the institution of a petition before this
Court on 25 February 2023. On 28 February 2023, this Court delivered its
judgment in the State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor
of Punjab1. This Court observed that:
“There was no occasion to seek legal advice on whether or not the
Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly should be convened. The
Governor was plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the
Council of Ministers.”
3. While concluding its judgment, this Court had the following
observations on the broader aspects of mature political governance in a
democracy:
“Political diﬀerences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon
and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue
between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race

1 Writ Petition (Civil) No 302 of 2023
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the
realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy. Such
a situation emerged before this Court, leading to the institution of
a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for a direction to the
Governor to summon the Legislative Assembly. It is inconceivable
that the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly would not be
convened. We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship
will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as
we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be
cognizant of the public trust in the oﬃces which they occupy. The
public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the
cause of our citizens and to ensure that the aﬀairs of the nation are
conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects
of the Preamble to the Constitution.”
4. Following the decision of this Court, the Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan
Sabha was summoned on 3 March 2023. The Speaker adjourned the session
sine die on 22 March 2023. On 12 June 2023, acting in pursuance of the
powers conferred by the second proviso to Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure
and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative
Assembly)2, the Speaker reconvened the sitting of the session of the Vidhan
Sabha on 19 and 20 June 2023. During the course of the session, the Vidhan
Sabha passed four Bills, namely:
(i) The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill 2023;
(ii) Punjab Aﬃliated Colleges (Security of Service) (Amendment)
Bill 2023;
(iii) Punjab Universities Law (Amendment) Bill 2023; and
(iv) Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill 2023
No action was taken by the Governor on these Bills.
5. Thereafter, the session of the Vidhan Sabha was sought to be
reconvened on 19 October 2023 since the following three Money Bills were
to be introduced :

2 “Rules of Procedure”
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 783
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

(i) The Punjab Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
(Amendment) Bill, 2023;
(ii) The Punjab Goods and Services Tax (Amendment) Bill 2023; and
(iii) The Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill 2023
The recommendation of the Governor was required in terms of the
provisions of Article 207(1) of the Constitution for the introduction of the
Bill in the Vidhan Sabha.
6. Correspondence was exchanged between the Chief Minister and the
Governor. On 15 July 2023, the Chief Minister addressed a communication
to the Governor noting that though the Sikh Gurudwaras (Amendment) Bill
2023 was submitted for assent on 26 June 2023, it had not been assented to
till then. In his response dated 17 July 2023, the Governor stated that:
“I have proceeded to receive legal advice which gives me to believe
that your calling of Vidhan Sabha session on 19-6-2023 and 20-6-2023
when these four Bills were passed was in breach of law and procedure”
The Governor thereby cast doubt on the legitimacy and legality of
those Bills. The Governor stated that “in the background of the legal advice
received” he was actively considering whether to obtain the legal opinion
of the Attorney General for India “or as per the Constitution, to reserve
these Bills for the consideration and consent of the President of India”.
The Governor stated that he would take action according to law after the
legality of the Vidhan Sabha session which was held on 19 and 20 June
2023 is ﬁrst examined.
7. The Governor addressed another letter on 24 July 2023 to the Chief
Minister annexing a “crux of legal opinion” obtained from a “constitutional
expert”, according to which “the House so summoned was patiently (sic)
illegal”. After the three Money Bills were forwarded to the Governor for
consideration in the special session of the Fourth Budget Session of the
Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan Sabha, proposed to be held from 20 October
2023, the Governor addressed a communication to the Chief Minister on
19 October 2023. He reiterated that in his previous communications dated
24 July 2023 and 12 October 2023, he had indicated that the calling of the
session was “patently illegal, against the accepted procedures and practice
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

of the legislature, and against the provisions of the Constitution”. The
Governor stated:
“As the Budget Session stood concluded, any such extended
session is bound to be illegal, and any business conducted during
such sessions is likely to be unlawful, and ab-initio void. Inspite
of these communications, disregarding the possibility of taking an
unconstitutional step, it appears that a decision has been taken to call
the session. For these reasons I withhold my approval to the above
mentioned Bills.”
8. Notably, the Governor did not ‘declare’ in any public notiﬁcation
that he is withholding his assent to the Bills. The Governor advised the
Chief Minister to call for a fresh Monsoon/Winter Session and to forward
an agenda setting out the speciﬁc business to be conducted so as to enable
him to grant permission for the summoning of the House to transact the
business.
9. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Governor, the State of Punjab
invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The State of Punjab seeks:
(a) A declaration that the Sessions held on 19 June 2023, 20 June
2023 and 20 October 2023 of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha are legal
and that the business transacted by the House is valid; and
(b) A mandamus to the eﬀect that the seven Bills which have been
kept pending by the Governor including the three Money Bills be
processed in accordance with law.
10. This Court entertained the Petition on 6 November 2023. During
the course of the hearing, the Court has been apprised of the fact that after
the institution of the Petition, the Governor has recommended that two
out of the three Money Bills, namely, the Punjab Goods and Services Tax
(Amendment) Bill 2023; and the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Bill
2023, may be introduced before the Vidhan Sabha.
II. Submissions
11. During the course of the hearing, we have heard submissions on
behalf of the petitioners by Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 785
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

who appeared with Mr Gurminder Singh, Advocate General for the State
of Punjab. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, senior counsel appeared on behalf of the
Principal Secretary to the Governor.
12. The principal submissions which have been urged on behalf of
the petitioners are that:
(a) Though the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly was
summoned on 3 March 2023, it was adjourned sine die on 22
March 2023 by the Speaker without prorogation;
(b) The adjournment of the House sine die could not have been
treated by the Governor as a prorogation of the House;
(c) The Speaker was acting within the exercise of constitutional
jurisdiction, as evinced by the provisions of the Rules of
Procedure governing the Vidhan Sabha, in reconvening the
sitting of the Assembly on 19 and 20 June 2023 under the second
proviso to Rule 16;
(d) Regulating the rules of procedure and the conduct of business
in the House lies within the sole discretion of the Speaker;
(e) The Governor as a symbolic head of State did not act within the
scope of his constitutional powers in coming to the conclusion
that reconvening of the session of the Vidhan Sabha in June 2023
was unconstitutional, thereby rendering the legislative business
which was transacted on 20 June 2023 void; and
(f) The consequence of the decision of the Speaker is to virtually
nullify the legislations which have been passed by an
overwhelming majority of the Members of the Legislative
Assembly.
13. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Secretary to
the Governor that:
(i) After the business of the Budget Session had been transacted, the
House was required to be prorogued and it was not open to the
Speaker to adjourn the proceeding sine die to be reconvened initially
on 19 and 20 June 2023 and thereafter on 19 and 20 October 2023;
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

(ii) Rule 14A of the Rules of Procedure requires that three sessions
should be held in the Vidhan Sabha, namely, the Budget
Session, the Monsoon Session and the Winter Session and
hence, it was not open to the Speaker to continue the Budget
Session in the month of June 2023;
(iii) The Governor has, as a matter of fact, assented to as many as
185 Bills which were presented to him for assent, which would
clearly indicate that there has been no delay on the part of the
Governor and it is only in view of the objection to the manner
in which the House was adjourned sine die that assent to the
four Bills was withheld;
(iv) Sub sequentl y, t he Governor has even granted hi s
recommendation for the introduction of two of the three Money
Bills in the Vidhan Sabha;
(v) In the reliefs which have been claimed in the petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners themselves seek
a declaration that the sessions which were held on 19 and 20
June 2023 and the business which was transacted was legal,
which is an indication of the fact that the State of Punjab itself
is unsure about the validity of the session; and
(vi) The Governor would have no objection whatsoever to deal
with the Bills in respect of which assent has been sought if
this Court were to clarify that the Budget Session was lawfully
adjourned sine die so as to be reconvened in the month of June
2023.
14. Two issues arise for consideration: ﬁrst, whether the Governor can
withhold action on Bills which have been passed by the State Legislature;
and second, whether it is permissible in law for the Speaker to reconvene
a sitting of a Vidhan Sabha session which has been adjourned but has not
been prorogued.
III. Analysis
A. The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot withhold action
on Bills passed by the State Legislature
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 787
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

15. In a Parliamentary form of democracy real power vests in the
elected representatives of the people. The governments, both in the States
and at the Centre consist of members of the State Legislature, and, as the
case may be, Parliament. Members of the government in a Cabinet form of
government are accountable to and subject to scrutiny by the legislature.
The Governor as an appointee of the President is the titular head of State.
The fundamental principle of constitutional law which has been consistently
followed since the Constitution was adopted is that the Governor acts on the
‘aid and advise’ of the Council of Ministers, save and except in those areas
where the Constitution has entrusted the exercise of discretionary power
to the Governor. This principle cements the bedrock of the constitutional
foundation that the power to take decisions aﬀecting the governance of the
State, or as the case may be of the nation essentially lies with the elected
arm of the government. The Governor is intended to be a constitutional
statesman, guiding the government on matters of constitutional concern.
16. These principles have been well established since the decision in
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab3, where this Court held:
“28. Under the Cabinet system of Government as embodied in our
Constitution the Governor is the constitutional or formal head of
the State and he exercises all his powers and functions conferred
on him by or under the Constitution on the aid and advice of his
Council of Ministers save in spheres where the Governor is required
by or under the Constitution to exercise his functions in his discretion.
…
32. It is a fundamental principle of English Constitutional law that
Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act. In England
the Sovereign never acts on his own responsibility. The power of the
Sovereign is conditioned by the practical rule that the Crown must
ﬁnd advisers to bear responsibility for his action. Those advisers
must have the conﬁdence of the House of Commons. This rule of
English Constitutional Law is incorporated in our Constitution. The
Indian Constitution envisages a Parliamentary and responsible

3 (1974) 2 SCC 831
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

form of Government at the Centre and in the States and not a
Presidential form of Government. The powers of the Governor
as the constitutional head are not diﬀerent.”
17. In SR Bommai v. Union of India4 a nine judge bench of this Court
has held that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The manner in which the role of the Governor as a symbolic Head of
State is performed is vital to safeguard this basic feature. The exercise of
unbridled discretion in areas not entrusted to the discretion of the Governor
risks walking rough shod over the working of a democratically elected
government at the State. In a steady line of cases this Court has strengthened
the importance of institutions and their vitality to democratic functioning.
Federalism and democracy, both parts of the basic structure, are inseparable.
When one feature is diluted it puts the other in peril. The tuning fork of
democracy and federalism is vital to the realization of the fundamental
freedoms and aspirations of our citizens. Whenever one prong of the tuning
fork is harmed, it damages the apparatus of constitutional governance.
18. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India,5 one of us (D Y
Chandrachud J) observed:
“287. … These cases involve vital questions about democratic
governance and the role of institutions in fulﬁlling constitutional
values. The Constitution guarantees to every individual the freedom
to adopt a way of life in which liberty, dignity and autonomy form
the core. The Constitution pursues a vision of fulﬁlling these values
through a democratic polity. The disputes which led to these cases
tell us how crucial institutions are to the realisation of democracy.
It is through them that the aspirations of a democratic way of life,
based on the rule of law, are fulﬁlled. Liberty, dignity and autonomy
are constraining inﬂuences on the power of the State. Fundamental
human freedoms limit the authority of the State. Yet the role of
institutions in achieving democracy is as signiﬁcant. Nations fail
when institutions of governance fail. The working of a democratic
institution is impacted by the statesmanship (or the lack of it)

4 (1994) 3 SCC 1
5 (2018) 8 SCC 501
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 789
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

shown by those in whom the electorate vests the trust to govern.
In a society such as ours, which is marked by a plurality of cultures, a
diversity of tradition, an intricate web of social identity and a clatter
of ideologies, institutional governance to be robust must accommodate
each one of them. Criticism and dissent form the heart of democratic
functioning. The responsiveness of institutions is determined in a large
measure by their ability to be receptive to diﬀerences and perceptive
to the need for constant engagement and dialogue. Constitutional
skirmishes are not unhealthy. They test the resilience of democracy.
How good a system works in practice must depend upon the
statesmanship of those who are in decision-making positions
within them. Hence, these cases are as much about interpreting
the Constitution as they are about the role of institutions in the
structure of democratic governance and the frailties of those who
must answer the concerns of citizens.”
19. The dispute in the present case essentially bears upon the Governor
having detained four Bills which were passed by the Vidhan Sabha on 20
June 2023. Article 2006 of the Constitution postulates that when a Bill
has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of
a bicameral legislature, by both the Houses, it shall be presented to the
Governor. The Governor has three options available when a Bill which has

6 When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a
State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature
of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either
that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the
Bill for the consideration of the President:
Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of
the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message
requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any speciﬁed provisions
thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such
amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the
House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again
by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for
assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:
Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the
consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would,
if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the
position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to ﬁll.
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

been passed by the State Legislature is presented for assent. The Governor
“shall declare” (i) either that he assents to the Bill; or (ii) that he withholds
assents therefrom; or (iii) that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the
President. The term “shall declare” implies that the Governor is required to
declare the exercise of his powers. The ﬁst proviso to Article 200 stipulates
that the Governor may “as soon as possible” return the Bill. The proviso to
Article 200 envisages that, as soon as possible, after the presentation to the
Governor of the Bill for assent he may return a Bill, which is not a Money Bill,
together with a message requesting that the House or Houses would reconsider
the Bill or any speciﬁc provisions of the Bill and in particular consider the
desirability of introducing such amendments which he may recommend. When
a Bill is returned by the Governor, the legislature of the State is duty bound
to reconsider the Bill. After the Bill is again passed by the legislature either
with or without amendment and is presented to the Governor for assent, the
Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom. Apart from the ﬁrst proviso in
the above terms, the second proviso envisages a situation where “the Governor
shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President”
those Bills that “so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger
the position” which the High Court is designed to ﬁll by the Constitution.
20. The present case turns upon how the ﬁrst proviso is to be construed.
In construing the ﬁrst proviso, it needs to be noted that the substantive part of
Article 200 provides the Governor with three options: an option to assent; an
option to withhold assent; and an option to reserve the Bill for the consideration
of the President. The ﬁrst proviso opens with the expression “the Governor
may” in contrast to the second proviso which begins with the expression
“the Governor shall not assent”. The “may” in the ﬁrst proviso is because
the ﬁrst proviso follows the substantive part which contains three options
for the Governor. The ﬁrst proviso does not qualify the ﬁrst option (where
the Governor assents to the Bill) nor the third option reserving the Bill for
consideration of the President. The ﬁrst proviso attaches to the second option
(withholding of assent) and hence begins with an enabling expression, “may”.
By the mandate of the second proviso, there is an embargo on the Governor
assenting to a Bill which derogates from the powers of the High Court under
the Constitution. The Governor is by the mandate of the Constitution required
to reserve such a Bill for consideration of the President.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 791
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

21. The second proviso impacts upon the option which is provided
by the substantive part of Article 200 to the Governor to reserve a Bill for
the consideration of the President by making it mandatory in the situation
envisaged there. The option of reserving a Bill for the consideration of the
President is turned into a mandate where the Governor has no option but
to reserve it for the consideration of the President. The second proviso is,
therefore, in the nature of an exception to the option which is granted to the
Governor by the substantive part of Article 200 to reserve any Bill for the
consideration of the President.
22. A proviso, as is well settled, may fulﬁl the purpose of being
an exception. Sometimes, however, a proviso may be in the form of an
explanation or in addition to the substantive provision of a statute. The ﬁrst
proviso allows the Governor, where the Bill is not a Money Bill to send it
back to the legislature together with a message. In terms of the message, the
legislature may be requested by the Governor to reconsider the entirety of
the Bill. This may happen for instance where the Governor believes that the
entirety of the Bill suﬀers from an inﬁrmity. Alternatively, the Governor may
request the legislature to reconsider any speciﬁc provision of the Bill. While
returning the Bill, the Governor may express the desirability of introducing
an amendment in the Bill. The desirability of an amendment may arise
with a view to cure an inﬁrmity or deﬁciency in the Bill. The concluding
part of the ﬁrst proviso however stipulates that if the Bill is passed again
by the legislature either with or without amendments, the Governor shall
not withhold assent therefrom upon presentation. The concluding phrase
“shall not withhold assent therefrom” is a clear indicator that the exercise
of the power under the ﬁrst proviso is relatable to the withholding of the
assent by the Governor to the Bill in the ﬁrst instance. That is why in the
concluding part, the ﬁrst proviso indicates that upon the passing of the
Bill by the legislature either with or without amendments, the Governor
shall not withhold assent. The role which is ascribed by the ﬁrst proviso
to the Governor is recommendatory in nature and it does not bind the state
legislature.
23. This is compatible with the fundamental tenet of a Parliamentary
form of government where the power to enact legislation is entrusted to the
elected representatives of the people. The Governor, as a guiding statesman,
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

may recommend reconsideration of the entirety of the Bill or any part thereof
and even indicate the desirability of introducing amendments. However, the
ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the advice of the Governor as
contained in the message belongs to the legislature alone. That the message
of the Governor does not bind the legislature is evident from the use of the
expression “if the Bill is passed again …with or without amendments”.
24. The substantive part of Article 200 empowers the Governor to
withhold assent to the Bill. In such an event, the Governor must mandatorily
follow the course of action which is indicated in the ﬁrst proviso of
communicating to the State Legislature “as soon as possible” a message
warranting the reconsideration of the Bill. The expression “as soon as
possible” is signiﬁcant. It conveys a constitutional imperative of expedition.
Failure to take a call and keeping a Bill duly passed for indeterminate
periods is a course of action inconsistent with that expression. Constitutional
language is not surplusage. In State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her
Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana & Anr.7 this
court observed that “The expression “as soon as possible” has signiﬁcant
constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional
authorities.” The Constitution evidently contains this provision bearing in
mind the importance which has been attached to the power of legislation
which squarely lies in the domain of the state legislature. The Governor
cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indeﬁnitely without any action
whatsoever.
25. The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with
certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart
the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures. Consequently, if
the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article
200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the ﬁrst
proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In
other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of
Article 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action
to be adopted by the Governor under the ﬁrst proviso. If the ﬁrst proviso is
not read in juxtaposition to the power to withhold assent conferred by the

7 WP(C) No. 333 of 2023
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 793
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

substantive part of Article 200, the Governor as the unelected Head of State
would be in a position to virtually veto the functioning of the legislative
domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is
withheld without any further recourse. Such a course of action would be
contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based
on a Parliamentary pattern of governance. Therefore, when the Governor
decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the
course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the
ﬁrst proviso. The Governor is under Article 1688 a part of the legislature
and is bound by the constitutional regime.
26. Insofar as Money Bills are concerned, the power of the Governor
to return a Bill in terms of the ﬁrst proviso is excluded from the purview
of the constitutional power of the Governor. Money Bills are governed
by Article 207 in terms of which the recommendation of the Governor is
required for the introduction of the Bill on a matter speciﬁed in clauses
(a) to (f) of clause (1) of Article 199.
27. Senior counsel for the respondent has argued that the Governor
has assented to about 185 Bills which would indicate that the delay on the
part of the Governor on the four Bills in question was only based on his
objection to the validity of the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha. The learned
senior counsel further submitted that the Governor has since granted his
recommendation for the introduction of two of the three Money Bills in
the Vidhan Sabha. As we have held above, the Governor is not at liberty
to withhold his action on the Bills which have been placed before him.
He has no avenue but to act in a manner postulated under Article 200.
Regardless, these submissions do not aﬀect the role of the Governor

8 Article 168.
Constitution of Legislatures in States. - (1) For every State there shall be a Legislature
which shall consist of the Governor, and (a) - [Andhra Pradesh], [***], Bihar, [***]
[Madhya Pradesh], [***[, [Maharashtra], [Karnataka] [***], [Tamil Nadu] [and Uttar
Pradesh], two Houses;
(b) in other States, one House. (2) Where there are two Houses of the Legislature of a
State, one shall be known as the Legislative Council and the other as the Legislative
Assembly, and where there is only one House, it shall be known as the Legislative
Assembly
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

under the Constitution or justify the inaction on the Bills sent to him by
a democratically elected State Legislature.
28. In view of the above, the Governor of Punjab was not empowered
to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must
act “as soon as possible”. In any event, as delineated below, it was legally
permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the Vidhan Sabha because (a) there
is a distinction between adjournment and prorogation; and (b) the Speaker
has exclusive jurisdiction over regulating the procedure of the House.
B. Reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has not been
prorogued is permissible in law and is within the exclusive domain
of the Speaker
1. Distinction between adjournment and prorogation
29. Article 174 of the Constitution provides that the Governor shall
from time to time summon the House or each House of the legislature of
the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks ﬁt. However, clause
(1) also speciﬁes that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting
in one session and the date appointed for the ﬁrst sitting in the next session.
Clause (2) of Article 174 empowers the Governor, from time to time to
(a) prorogue the House or either House of the legislature; and (b) dissolve
the Legislative Assembly. Article 174 thus makes a reference to distinct
constitutional concepts, namely, the power to prorogue and the power to
dissolve.
30. Signiﬁcantly, Article 174 also makes a distinction between a
sitting of the legislature and a session of the legislature. That is how, while
specifying the maximum duration between two sittings, Article 174(1)
stipulates that not more than six months should elapse between the last sitting
of the legislature in one session and the date appointed for its ﬁrst sitting in
the next session. This implicitly recognizes that there may be more than one
sitting of the legislature comprised in one session. Similar provisions have
been made in relation to Parliament under Article 85 of the Constitution.
31. Kaul and Shakdher in their well-known treatise on the Practice
and Procedure of Parliament (7th Ed) note that the termination of a session
of the House of Parliament by an order made by the President under Article
85(2) of the Constitution is called prorogation. Moreover, the President in
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 795
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

exercising the power to prorogue the House acts on the advice of the Prime
Minister. Usually, as the authors note, prorogation follows the adjournment
of the sitting of the House sine die. However, the authors list several instances
where the adjournment of the sitting of the House sine die is not followed by
a prorogation and the sittings of the House are reconvened by the Speaker.
A few illustrative instances discussed by the authors are set out below:
(a) The Eighth Session of the Eighth Lok Sabha commenced on 23
March 1987 and was adjourned sine die on 12 May 1987. The
Lok Sabha was not, however, prorogued. The Speaker reconvened
the sittings of Lok Sabha from 27 July 1987 which continued
till 28 August 1987. The two parts, preceding and following the
period of adjournment of Lok Sabha sine die on 12 May 1987,
were treated as constituting one session divided into two parts. On
conclusion of the second part of the Eighth Session, the Lok Sabha
was adjourned sine die on 28 August 1987 and was prorogued on
3 September 1987; and
(b) The Third Session of the Ninth Lok Sabha commenced on 07
August 1990 and was adjourned sine die on 07 September 1990.
The Lok Sabha was not, however, prorogued. The Speaker
reconvened the sittings of the Lok Sabha from 01 October 1990
which continued till 05 October 1990.
32. Similar incidents of reconvening an adjourned sitting of the House,
without prorogations can also be found in the (a) Fourteenth Session of the
Eighth Lok Sabha which commenced on 18 July 1989; (b) First Session of
the Eleventh Lok Sabha which commenced on 22 May 1996; (c) Fourteenth
Session of Thirteenth Lok Sabha which commenced on 02 December 2003;
(d) Seventh Session of Fourteenth Lok Sabha which commenced on 16
February 2006.
33. Article 208 of the Constitution provides that a House of the
legislature of a State may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions
of the Constitution, its procedure and the conduct of its business. The Rules
of Procedure framed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha contain provisions which
have a bearing on the subject under discussion. Rule 2 deﬁnes “prorogue” to
mean the ending of a session by an order of the Governor under Article 174(2)
(a) of the Constitution. Rule 3 postulates that when a session of the Vidhan
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

Sabha is summoned under Article 174 of the Constitution, the Secretary
shall issue a notiﬁcation in respect thereof in the Gazette. According to
Rule 7, when a session of the Vidhan Sabha is prorogued, the Secretary
shall issue a notiﬁcation in the Gazette and inform the Members. Rule
7A postulates that on the prorogation of the House, all pending notices,
other than notices of intention to move for leave to introduce a Bill,
shall lapse. Rule 14 provides that the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha is duly
constituted when it is presided over by the Speaker or any other Member
competent to preside over a sitting under the Constitution or the Rules.
Rule 14A provides that subject to the provisions of Article 174, there
shall be three Sessions in a ﬁnancial year, namely, the Budget Session,
Summer/Monsoon Session and Winter Session of the Assembly and that
the total number of sittings in all the Sessions put together shall not be
less than forty. Rule 16 provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of the Constitution and these Rules the
Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) may be adjourned from time to time by
its own order:
Provided that a motion for adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha
(Assembly) to a day or sine die shall not be made except in
consultation with the Speaker:
Provided further that the Speaker may, if it is represented to him by
the Minister that the public interest requires that the Vidhan Sabha
(Assembly) should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment
and if he is satisﬁed that the public interest does so require, give
notice that he is so satisﬁed, and call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha
(Assembly) before the day to which it has been adjourned or any
time after it has been adjourned sine die.”
34. Rule 16 indicates that the Vidhan Sabha may be adjourned by its
own order from time to time. This is however subject to the provisions
of the Constitution and the Rules. In terms of the ﬁrst proviso, a motion
for adjournment either to a day or sine die requires consultation with
the Speaker. Signiﬁcantly, in terms of the second proviso, the Speaker
is empowered in public interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha
earlier than the date to which it has been adjourned or at any time after
it has been adjourned sine die. Therefore, it is clear that the Rules of
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 797
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

Procedure expressly recognize a situation where the Speaker reconvenes
a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has been adjourned sine die but not
prorogued.
35. The provision empowering the Speaker to reconvene a sitting
of the Vidhan Sabha on any date after it has been adjourned sine die
is not unique to the Rules of Procedure of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. A
review of the Rules of Procedure of State Legislatures for various states
indicates that almost all of them contain an identical or similar provision.
By way of illustration, to name a few, the Rules of Procedure for the State
Legislatures of Rajasthan,9 Haryana,10 Tamil Nadu,11 Kerala,12 and West
Bengal13 expressly permit the Speaker to call a sitting of the House any
time after it has been adjourned. A similar provision is also contained in
the ﬁrst proviso to Rule 15(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in Lok Sabha.14 Therefore, it is common practice for the Rules
of Procedure of State Legislatures and Parliament to permit the Speaker
to call a sitting of the House after it has been adjourned sine die.
36. In Ramdas Athawale (5) v. Union of India and Others15, a
Constitution Bench of this Court distinguished between the prorogation
of the House and its adjournment. The Court held that:
“22. An adjournment is an interruption in the course of one and
the same session, whereas a prorogation terminates a session. The

9 Rule 13, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajasthan Legislative
Assembly.
10 Rule 16, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Haryana Legislative
Assembly.
11 Rule 26, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules.
12 Rule 14, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative
Assembly.
13 Rule 15, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the West Bengal Legislative
Aseembly.
14 15. Adjournment of House and procedure for reconvening. - (1) The Speaker shall
determine the time when a sitting of the House shall be adjourned sine die or to a
particular day, or to an hour or part of the same day:
Provided that the Speaker, if thinks ﬁt, may call a sitting of the House before the
date or time to which it has been adjourned or at any time after the House has been
adjourned sine die.
15 (2010) 4 SCC 1
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

effect of prorogation is to put an end with certain exceptions to
all proceedings in Parliament then current.
…
23. In May’s Parliamentary Practice, which has assumed the status
of a classic on the subject and is usually regarded as an authoritative
exposition of parliamentary practice, it is stated:
“A session is the period of time between the meeting of a
Parliament, whether after the prorogation or dissolution, and its
prorogation…. During the course of a session, either House may
adjourn itself of its own motion to such as it pleases. The period
between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a
new session is termed as ‘recess’; while the period between the
adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is
generally called an ‘adjournment’.”
…
25. It is thus clear that whenever the House resumes after it is adjourned
sine die, its resumption for the purpose of continuing its business does
not amount to commencement of the session. The resumed sitting of the
House, in this case, on 29-1-2004, does not amount to commencement
of the ﬁrst session in the year 2004.
37. The Constitution and established legislative practice distinguish
between adjournment sine die and prorogation of the session of the House.
In the case before us the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on 22 March 2023
without prorogation. Therefore, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene
the sittings of the House within the same session.
2. Exclusive domain of the Speaker to regulate the procedure of
the House
38. Article 178 of the Constitution provides for the oﬃce of the
Speaker and Deputy Speaker of a Legislative Assembly. Article 212 of the
Constitution precludes the courts from inquiring into the proceedings of
the legislature of the State. A corresponding provision with regard to the
Parliament is contained in Article 122. The decision In Ramdas Athawale
(supra) is signiﬁcant in that it dwells on the role of the Speaker of the
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 799
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

House and interprets Article 122 of the Constitution. The Constitution
Bench observed:
“ 31. The Speaker is the guardian of the privileges of the House and its
spokesman and representative upon all occasions. He is the interpreter
of its rules and procedure, and is invested with the power to control
and regulate the course of debate and to maintain order. The powers
to regulate the procedure and conduct of business of the House of the
People vests in the Speaker of the House. By virtue of the powers vested
in him, the Speaker, in purported exercise of his power under Rule 15
of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha got
issued Notice dated 20-1-2004 through the Secretary General of the
Lok Sabha directing resumption of sittings of the Lok Sabha which
was adjourned sine die on 23-12-2003. Whether the resumed sitting
on 29-1-2004 was to be treated as the second part of the fourteenth
session as directed by the Speaker is essentially a matter relating purely
to the procedure of Parliament. The validity of the proceedings and
business transacted in the House after resumption of its sittings cannot
be tested and gone into by this Court in a proceeding under Article 32
of the Constitution of India.”
39. The Court observed that under Article 122(2), the decision of the
Speaker in whom powers are vested to regulate the procedure and conduct
of business is ﬁnal and binding on every Member of the House. Hence, this
Court held that the validity of the Speaker adjourning the House sine die and
the later direction to resume sittings could not be inquired into on the ground
of any irregularity of procedure. The Court reaﬃrmed that the business
transacted and the validity of proceedings after the resumption of sittings
of the House pursuant to the direction of the Speaker cannot be inquired
by the courts. This follows the fundamental principle that it is the right of
each House of the legislature to be the sole Judge of the lawfulness of its
own proceedings so as to be immune from challenge before a court of law.
40. As stated above, Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure empowers
the Vidhan Sabha to adjourn from time to time by its own order. The ﬁrst
proviso to Rule 16 acknowledges that adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha
may be either to a particular day or sine die. An adjournment sine die
postulates that there is no speciﬁc date on which the sitting of the Vidhan
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R.

Sabha is convened. The ﬁrst proviso requires express consultation with the
Speaker in that regard, for the adjournment of the Vidhan Sabha. However,
even when an adjournment takes place the Speaker is entrusted in public
interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha before the date to which it
has been adjourned. These provisions are a clear indicator of the control
of the Speaker in the conduct, both of the legislative business of the House
and matters pertaining to its adjournment.
41. Therefore, it was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene
the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without
prorogation. Further, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of
the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House.
42. The submission that the declaration sought by the State of Punjab
in the present petition namely, that the sessions of the Vidhan Sabha and
the business transacted was legal indicates that the State of Punjab is unsure
about the validity of the sessions is misconceived. The declaration has not
been sought in a vacuum but in response to the Governor’s inaction on the
Bills purportedly on the grounds that the sessions were invalid. In fact, as
evidenced by the correspondence, the State of Punjab has consistently held
the position that the sessions of the Vidhan Sabha and the business transacted
therein are legal and constitutionally valid. The fact that a petitioner has
approached this Court seeking declaratory relief cannot be used to the
petitioner’s detriment.
43. During the course of the hearing, a question was posed to the senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Punjab as to whether the course
of action which has been followed in the present case could possibly be
utilized to justify the indeﬁnite adjournment of the House sine die so as to
obviate the prorogation of the House. We posed a query to learned counsel
on whether the power of adjourning of the House sine die could be used
to obviate the proroguing of the House over an entire year. Responding to
the query, Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that the Chief Minister heading the Council of
Ministers of the State of Punjab would be advising the Speaker to convene
the Winter Session of the State Legislative Assembly at an early date which
would be ﬁxed in due consultation. Dr Singhvi urged that the course of action
which was adopted in the present case was due to the diﬃculty faced by
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 801
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

the government in having the House summoned by the Governor. Counsel
adverted to the situation which arose when the Governor was delaying in
summoning the Vidhan Sabha for the Budget session, which eventually led
to proceedings before this court under Article 32. The imbroglio which arose
in the State would have been obviated by statesmanship and collaboration.
IV. Conclusion
44. Bearing in mind the well settled principles which have been
adverted to above, we are of the view that there is no valid constitutional
basis to cast doubt on the validity of the session of the Vidhan Sabha which
was held on 19 June 2023, 20 June 2023 and 20 October 2023. Any attempt to
cast doubt on the session of the legislature would be replete with grave perils
to democracy. The Speaker who has been recognized to be a guardian of the
privileges of the House and the constitutionally recognized authority who
represents the House, was acting well within his jurisdiction in adjourning
the House sine die. The re-convening of the House was within the ambit
of Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure. Casting doubt on the validity of the
session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor. The
Legislative Assembly comprises of duly elected Members of the Legislature.
During the tenure of the Assembly, the House is governed by the decisions
which are taken by the Speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation.
We are, therefore, of the view that the Governor of Punjab must now proceed
to take a decision on the Bills which have been submitted for assent on the
basis that the sitting of the House which was conducted on 19 June 2023,
20 June 2023 and 20 October 2023 was constitutionally valid.
45. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the
manner in which the Governor will exercise his jurisdiction on the Bills in
question presented to him. However, he must act in a manner consistent
with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution.
46. The Petition shall accordingly stand disposed of in the above terms.
47. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Petition disposed of.
Ankit Gyan

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Governor's assent"Sign in to search