State of Punjab  (Petitioner) Vs.  Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab    (Respondents)

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023

(3JB, DY Chandrachud, J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra JJ., delivered by DY Chandrachud, CJI)

Facts: 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.

Issue:

1. Whether the Governor can withhold action on Bills which have been passed by the State Legislature?
2. 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?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for petitioner: Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi

• 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;
• The adjournment of the House sine die could not have been treated by the Governor as a prorogation of the House;
• 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;
• Regulating the rules of procedure and the conduct of business in the House lies within the sole discretion of the Speaker;
• 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
• 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.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents: Mr. Satya Pal Jain

• 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;
• 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;
• 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 9 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;
• Subsequently, the Governor has even granted his recommendation for the introduction of two of the three Money Bills in the Vidhan Sabha;
• 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
• 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.

Held: The court disposed off the present appeal holding 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.”

With respect to the first issue, it was observed that, “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.”

With respect to the second issue, it was 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.”