Holding

The Governor must summon the Legislature on the advice of the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister is constitutionally bound to provide information under Article 167, making the Governor’s delay unlawful.

Summary

The Punjab government, through its Council of Ministers, recommended that the Governor summon the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session on 3 March 2023. The Governor sought extensive information from the Chief Minister under Article 167 and, after receiving a tweet and a letter that he deemed derogatory, said he would seek legal advice before acting on the recommendation. The State filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, a quashing of the Governor’s communication, and an order to summon the Assembly. The Supreme Court noted that the Governor had, on 28 February 2023, issued an order summoning the Assembly, thereby substantially fulfilling the reliefs sought. The Court held that the Governor is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers and that the Chief Minister has a constitutional duty under Article 167 to furnish information to enable the Governor to discharge his duties. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

The Governor's duty to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning the State Legislature under Article 174.
The Chief Minister's constitutional obligation under Article 167 to furnish information to the Governor.
Whether the Governor could lawfully seek legal advice and delay summoning the Assembly based on the Chief Minister's tweet and letter.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.167, s. Art.174, s. Art.32

Subjects

GovernorChief MinisterArticle 167Article 174aid and adviceparliamentary democracyinformation dutysummoning legislaturefree speechconstitutional decorum

Judgment

532 [2023]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 6 S.C.R. 532 [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB
AND ANOTHER
B (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 302 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 28, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Constitution of India – Art.174 – Governor addressed a
C
communication (dated 13.02.2023) to the Chief Minister (CM)
highlighting his concern on certain issues to which the CM had
responded through a letter and a ’tweet’ (not furnished the relevant
information sought) – The Governor noted that the CM in his
correspondence underscored the mandate of Art. 167 of the
D Constitution as per which the CM is bound to furnish full details
and information sought by the Governor – On 22.02.2023, the
Council of Ministers of the Government of Punjab recommended
the summoning of the Budget Session of the Vidhan Sabha on
03.03.2023 under Art. 174(1) – The Governor of Punjab addressed
a communication to the CM, which referred to the prior exchange
E
of correspondence between them and stated that only after taking
legal advice on the prior exchange between them, he will take a
decision on the recommendation – State filed a writ petition u/Art.32
on the inaction of the Governor in summoning the Assembly for the
Budget Session – Held: In terms of the order dated 28.02.2023
F (after the institution of petition), the Governor had summoned the
Vidhan Sabha to meet for its Fourth (Budget) Session on 03.03.2023,
thus the reliefs sought have been substantially fulfilled – Further,
that there was no occasion to seek legal advice on whether or not
the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly should be convened,
as per the constitutional provision the Governor was plainly bound
G
by the advice tendered to him by the Council of Ministers.
Constitution of India – Art.167 – Scope of – Held: The Chief
Minister has the duty to communicate and duty to furnish such
information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State
and proposals for legislation as the Governor may require – The
H
532
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 533
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

information that the Governor seeks under Art. 167 would enable A
them to effectively discharge their duties – The Chief Minister is
required to discharge their duties under Art. 167 to enable the
Governor to effectively discharge their duties stipulated in the
Constitution.
Disposing of the petition, the Court B
HELD:1. The Governor of Punjab has summoned the
Sixteenth Vidhan Sabha of the State of Punjab to meet for its Fourth
(Budget) Session at 10 am on 3 March 2023. With the issuance
of the above order by the Governor, the reliefs which have been
sought in the petition have been substantially fulfilled. [Paras C
15,16][538-G-H]
2. The Chief Minister has the duty to communicate to the
Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the
administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for
legislation. Going beyond the duty to communicate, the Chief D
Minister has a duty to furnish such information relating to the
administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for
legislation as the Governor may require. Moreover, if the
Governor so requires, the Chief Minister is duty bound to submit
for consideration to the Council of Ministers any matter on which
the decision is taken by a Minister which has not been considered E
by the Council of Ministers. [Para 18][539-E-F]
3. The power of the Governor to seek information under
Article 167 must be read holistically with reference to their duties
as constitutional head under the Constitution. The information
that the Governor seeks under Article 167 would enable them to F
effectively discharge their duties. To illustrate, the Governor has
the power to direct reconsideration of bills that are passed in the
assembly. For the Governor to make this decision, it is necessary
that all the relevant information that would aid them in making
the said decision must be made available. Similarly, the governor G
requires all relevant information to identify if a decision has been
taken by a Minister individually without the consideration of the
council. The Governor might be unable to discharge their duty

H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A under Article 167(c) if the Chief Minister does not discharge
their duty under Article 167(a) and Article 167 (b) by providing
the Governor with relevant information as requested. Thus, the
Chief Minister is required to discharge their duties under Article
167 to enable the Governor to effectively discharge their duties
stipulated in the Constitution. [Para 19][539-G-H; 540-A-B]
B
4. While responding to the request by the Council of
Ministers for summoning the House, the communication of the
Governor dated 23 February 2023 referred to the Cabinet
decision. However, the Governor also referred to the tweet of
the Chief Minister and to his letter dated 14 February 2023 and
C then proceeded to state that since both the tweet and the letter
were “patently unconstitutional” and “extremely derogatory”,
he was compelled to take legal advice “on this issue” and that he
would decide on the request thereafter. There was no occasion
to seek legal advice on whether or not the Budget Session of the
D Legislative Assembly should be convened. The Governor was
plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the Council of
Ministers. [Para 23][543-D-F]
5. The genesis of the controversy has required the
intervention of this Court at two distinct levels: first, to ensure
E that the constitutional duty of the Governor to act on the aid and
advice of the Council of Ministers to summon the Legislative
Assembly is fulfilled without delay or demur; and second, to
ensure that the obligation of the Chief Minister to furnish
information to the Governor in terms of Article 167(b) of the
Constitution is fulfilled. There are two equally important aspects
F for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure
of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct
provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to
another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation.
Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free
G speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in
Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that
constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of
decorum and mature statesmanship. [Para 25][544-C-E]

H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 535
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 2 SCC 831 : A
[1975] 1 SCR 814; Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker,
Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC
1: [2016] 6 SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[1975] 1 SCR 814 followed para 21 B

[2016] 6 SCR 1 followed para 22
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
302 of 2023.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India C
Shadan Farasat, AAG, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Amit
Bhandari, Shourya Dasgupta, Ms. Hrishika Jain, Ms. Mreganka Kukreja,
Aman Naqvi, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Satya Pal Jain, ASG, Kanu Agrawal, Madhav
D
Sinhal, Kartikay Aggarwal, Ajay Pal, Karan Sharma, Mayank Dahiya,
Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
E
1. On 22 February 2023, the Council of Ministers of the
Government of Punjab recommended the summoning of the Budget
Session of the Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan Sabha on 3 March 2023 under
Article 174(1) of the Constitution.
2. On 23 February 2023, the Governor of Punjab addressed a
F
communication to the Chief Minister of the State. The subject of the letter
was:
“Cabinet decision on summoning of the house of the legislature of
the State on 3rd March 2023.”
3. The letter of the Governor refers to a prior exchange of G
correspondence between the Governor and the Chief Minister; the
Governor having addressed an earlier communication of 13 February 2023
to which the Chief Minister had responded through a letter dated 14
February 2023 and a ’tweet’ of the same date.
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 4. In his communication of 13 February 2023 to the Chief Minister,
the Governor highlighted his concern on certain specific issues, namely:
(i) The basis on which Principals were selected for being sent to
Singapore for training; and
(ii) The appointment of the Chairman of the Punjab Information
B and Communication Technology Corporation Limited.
5. The Governor noted that while the Chief Minister had in his
previous correspondence underscored the mandate with which he has
assumed the office of Chief Minister, in terms of Article 167 of the
Constitution, the Chief Minister is bound to furnish full details and
C information sought by the Governor.
6. Besides the above two issues, the Governor sought a clarification
on the following matters:
“(a) About two lacs Scheduled Castes students were compelled
D to discontinue their studies due to non disbursal of scholarship
by the Government. (letter No.Spl.Secy.Gov/2022/95 dated
21-07-2022).
(b) To remove the illegally appointed Vice Chancellor of PAU
vide letter No.5/1/2021-PRB-PAU-2G/6904 dated 23-11-
22.
E
(c) Inspite of my detailed letter dated 14-12-2022 you chose to
ignore all misdeeds of Sh. Kuldeep Singh Chahal, IPS. You
have not only promoted him but also posted him as
Commissioner of Jalandhar and that too the orders being
issued just before 26th January, knowing very well that
F
Governor is to unfurl the national flag at Jalandhar. I had to
instruct the DGP that concerned officer should maintain
distance during ceremony. On this issue it seems that this
officer was your blue eyed boy and you chose to ignore facts
that were brought to your notice by this office.
G (d) Vide letter dated 4-1-2023 I wrote about the presence of
Sh. Naval Aggarwal in meetings of senior officers, where
sensitive and confidential matters of security of the country
are discussed. I have not received any reply till date.

H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 537
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

(e) My letters asking for details of advertisements where you A
were asked for complete details, is also perhaps lying in
cold storage.”
7. Responding to the above communication, the Chief Minister
(@ Bhagwant Mann) issued a tweet in the following terms:
“Hon’ble Governor Sir, your letter was received through the B
media..all the subjects mentioned in the letter are all state
subjects...I and my government are accountable to 3 crore Punjabis
according to the Constitution and not to any Governor appointed
by the Central Government. Consider this as my reply.”
8. This was followed by another communication of the Chief C
Minister dated 14 February 2023, in which he stated thus:
“DO No.CMO/CONFI-2023/132 Dated:14.02.2023
Honorable Governor Sahib,
I have received your letter No.Spl.Secy.Gov/2023/34 dated 13 th D
February, 2023.
All the subjects mentioned in your letter are the subjects of the state
government. In this regard, I would like to clarify that according to
the Indian Constitution, I and my government are answerable to 3
crore Punjabis. E
You have asked me, on what basis the principals are selected for
training in Singapore. The people of Punjab want to ask, on what
basis are the Governors in different states elected by the Central
Government in the absence of any specific qualification in the
Indian Constitution? F
Please increase the knowledge of Punjabis by telling this.”
9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid communication by the Chief
Minister and his tweet, the Governor while responding to the request of
the Cabinet for summoning the Budget Session of the Vidhan Sabha from
3 March 2023 stated that: G

“Since your tweet and letter, both are not only patently
unconstitutional but extremely derogatory also, therefore, I am
compelled to take legal advice on this issue. Only after getting
legal advice, I will take decision on your request”.
H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 10. The inaction of the Governor in summoning the Assembly for
the Budget Session has led to the invocation of the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by the State of Punjab.
11. The Government of Punjab seeks (a) a declaration that the
Governor of Punjab is duty bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council
B of Ministers in matters of summoning or proroguing of the Vidhan Sabha
of the State of Punjab; (b) a writ of certiorari quashing the
communication of the Governor dated 23 February 2023 stating that a
decision on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers for summoning
the Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session would be taken only after obtaining
legal advice; and (c) a direction to the Principal Secretary to the Governor
C of Punjab to facilitate the issuance of appropriate orders for summoning
the Legislative Assembly for its Budget Session at 10 am on 3 March 2023.
12. Since the date for the convening of the Budget Session is
barely three days away, the petition was mentioned for urgent orders, on
which it was directed to be listed at 3.50 pm today.
D
13. Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel has appeared on
behalf of the petitioner. Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India
appears on behalf of the first respondent. Mr Ajay Pal, counsel has
appeared for the second respondent.

E 14. At the outset, the Solicitor General has placed on the record an
order dated 28 February 2023 of the Governor of Punjab. For convenience
of reference, the order is extracted below:
“In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by virtue of
Clause(1) of Article 174 of the Constitution of India, I, Banwarilal
F Purohit, Governor of Punjab, hereby summon the Sixteenth Vidhan
Sabha of the State of Punjab to meet for its Fourth (Budget) Session
at 10.00 am on Friday, the 3rd March 2023 in the Punjab Vidhan
Sabha Hall, Vidhan Bhavan, Chandigarh.”
15. In terms of the above order, the Governor of Punjab has
summoned the Sixteenth Vidhan Sabha of the State of Punjab to meet
G
for its Fourth (Budget) Session at 10 am on 3 March 2023.
16. With the issuance of the above order by the Governor, the
reliefs which have been sought in the petition have been substantially
fulfilled. However, before disposing of the petition, there are certain facets
which must be highlighted by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional
H duty.
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 539
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

17. The institution of these proceedings has its genesis in the A
communications issued by the Governor for the disclosure of information
by the State government. Article 167 of the Constitution enunciates the
duty of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor. The
provision is in the following terms:
“167. Duties of Chief Minister as respects the furnishing of B
information to Governor, etc– It shall be the duty of the Chief
Minister of each State–
(a) to communicate to the Governor of the State all decisions of the
Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs
of the State and proposals for legislation; C
(b) to furnish such information relating to the administration of the
affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the
Governor may call for; and
(c) if the Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration
of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision D
has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered
by the Council.”
18. The Chief Minister has the duty to communicate to the
Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the
administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. E
Going beyond the duty to communicate, the Chief Minister has a duty to
furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of
the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may require.
Moreover, if the Governor so requires, the Chief Minister is duty bound
to submit for consideration to the Council of Ministers any matter on which F
the decision is taken by a Minister which has not been considered by the
Council of Ministers.
19. The power of the Governor to seek information under Article
167 must be read holistically with reference to their duties as constitutional
head under the Constitution. The information that the Governor seeks
G
under Article 167 would enable them to effectively discharge their duties.
To illustrate, the Governor has the power to direct reconsideration of
bills that are passed in the assembly. For the Governor to make this
decision, it is necessary that all the relevant information that would aid
them in making the said decision must be made available. Similarly, the
governor requires all relevant information to identify if a decision has been H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A taken by a Minister individually without the consideration of the council.
The Governor might be unable to discharge their duty under Article 167(c)
if the Chief Minister does not discharge their duty under Article 167(a)
and Article 167 (b) by providing the Governor with relevant information as
requested. Thus, the Chief Minister is required to discharge their duties
under Article 167 to enable the Governor to effectively discharge their
B
duties stipulated in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were
prescient in incorporating the above provisions. They ensure that while
on the one hand the administration of the State is entrusted to a
democratically elected Chief Minister who heads the Council of Ministers,
which in turn, owes collective responsibility to the state legislature, the
C Governor as a constitutional authority appointed by the President is
entrusted with the duty to ensure a just, fair, and honest administration.
In this context, it is important to refer to the speech of Dr. BR Ambedkar
on Article 167 (draft Article 147) in the Constitution Assembly:1
“A distinction has been made between the functions of the Governor
D and the duties which the Governor has to perform. My submission
is that although the Governor has no functions still, even the
constitutional Governor, that he is, has certain duties to perform.
His duties, according to me, may be classified in two parts. One is,
that he has to retain the Ministry in office. Because the Ministry
is to hold office during his pleasure, he has to see whether and
E when he should exercise his pleasure against the Ministry. The
second duty which the Governor has, and must have, is to advise the
Ministry, to warn the Ministry, to suggest to the Ministry an
alternative and to ask for a reconsideration. I do not think that
anybody in this House will question the fact that the Governor
F should have this duty cast upon him; otherwise, he would be an
absolutely unnecessary functionary: no good at all: He is the
representative not of a party, he is representative of the people as
a whole of the State. It is in the name of the people that he carries
on the administration. He must see that the administration is carried
on a level which may be regarded as good, efficient, honest
G administration. Therefore, having regard to these two duties which
the Governor has namely, to see that the administration is kept
pure, without corruption, impartial, and that the proposals enunciated

1
Dr BR Ambedkar in response to Biswanath Das, Constituent Assembly of India
H Debates (Proceedings)- Volume VIII (2 June 1949)
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 541
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

by the Ministry are not contrary to the wishes of the people, and A
therefore to advise them, warn them and ask them to reconsider-
I ask the House, how is the Governor in a position to carry out his
duties unless he has before him certain information? I submit that
he cannot discharge the constitutional functions of a Governor
which I have just referred to unless he is in a position to obtain the
B
information.”
20. The power to summon, prorogue and dissolve the legislative
assembly is enshrined in Article 174 of the Constitution which is extracted
below:
“174. Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and C
dissolution.–
(1) The Governor shall form 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, but six months shall not intervene between
its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first D
sitting in the next session.
(2) The Governor may from time to time–
(a) prorogue the House or either House;
(b) dissolve the Legislative Assembly.”
E
21. The decision of a seven-Judge Constitution Bench in Shamsher
Singh vs State of Punjab 2 has laid down that the Governor is a
constitutional or formal Head of the State and exercises powers and
functions on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The relevant
extracts from the decision make the position of law clear:
F
“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 G
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
2
(1974) 2 SCC 831 H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B
Parliamentary and responsible 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.
142. The extraordinary powers of legislation by ordinances,
C
dispensing with enquiries against public servants before dismissal,
declaration of emergency and imposition of President’s rule by
proclamation upon States, are vast powers of profound significance.
Indeed, even the power of summoning and proroguing and
dissolving the House of the People and returning Bills passed
D by the Parliament belongs to him. If only we expand the
ratio of Sardari Lal and Jayantilal to every function which
the various articles of the Constitution confer on the
President or the Governor, Parliamentary democracy will
become a dope and national elections a numerical exercise
in expensive futility. We will be compelled to hold that there are
E
two parallel authorities exercising powers of governance of the
country, as in the dyarchy days, except that Whitehall is substituted
by Rashtrapati Bhavan and Raj Bhavan. The Cabinet will shrink
at Union and State levels in political and administrative authority
and, having solemn regard to the gamut of his powers and
F responsibilities, the Head of State will be reincarnation of Her
Majesty’s Secretary of State for India, untroubled by even the
British Parliament — a little taller in power than the American
President. Such a distortion, by interpretation, it appears to us,
would virtually amount to a subversion of the structure, substance
and vitality of our Republic, particularly when we remember that
G
Governors are but appointed functionaries and the President
himself is elected on a limited indirect basis. As we have already
indicated, the overwhelming catena of authorities of this Court have
established over the decades that the cabinet form of Government
and the Parliamentary system have been adopted in India and the
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 543
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

contrary concept must be rejected as incredibly allergic to our A
political genius, constitutional creed and culture.”

(emphasis supplied)
22. This position was reiterated by a Constitution Bench in Nabam
Rebia v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly 3. B
In view of the constitutional provision and the judgments of this Court,
there can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to
the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of
the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters.
This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to
C
exercise his own discretion. In the present case, the Governor was not
summoning the House for the first time following a general election, but
was advised by the Council of Ministers to convene the Budget Session,
at the behest of a government which has been duly elected in the general
election. Plainly, the Governor was duty bound to do so.
D
23. While responding to the request by the Council of Ministers
for summoning the House, the communication of the Governor dated 23
February 2023 referred to the Cabinet decision. However, the Governor
also referred to the tweet of the Chief Minister and to his letter dated 14
February 2023 and then proceeded to state that since both the tweet and
the letter were “patently unconstitutional” and “extremely derogatory”, E
he was compelled to take legal advice “on this issue” and that he would
decide on the request thereafter. 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. F
24. Having said this, it would also be necessary to underscore that
both the Chief Minister and the Governor are constitutional functionaries
who have specified roles and obligations earmarked by the Constitution.
The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in
terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the G
affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is
sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it. The tone and tenor of
the tweet and the letter by the Chief Minister leave much to be desired.
Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would
3
(2016) 8 SCC 1 H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the
Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b). Yet on the other hand, the
dereliction of the Chief Minister to do so would not furnish a justification for
the Governor not to comply with the constitutional obligation to summon
the House for its Budget Session in terms of the advice which was tendered
B by the Council of Ministers. It was after the institution of the petition
under Article 32 that the Assembly was summoned.
25. The genesis of the controversy has required the intervention
of this Court at two distinct levels: first, to ensure that the constitutional
duty of the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers
C to summon the Legislative Assembly is fulfilled without delay or demur;
and second, to ensure that the obligation of the Chief Minister to furnish
information to the Governor in terms of Article 167(b) of the Constitution
is fulfilled. There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of
a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority
to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does
D
not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional
obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of
free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article
19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse
has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.
E
26. 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 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
F 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
G 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.
H
STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF 545
PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

27. With these observations, the Petition shall stand disposed of. A
28. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan Petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
B

C

D

E

F

G

H