New Delhi : In a stern rebuke, the Supreme Court on Friday criticized the Punjab Governor for withholding assent to bills passed by the state legislature, calling the deadlock between the Governor and the elected government a matter of “serious concern.” The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, questioned the Governor’s authority to judge the validity of a prorogued session.
“How can you (the Governor) sit in judgment whether a session has been validly prorogued or otherwise?” the bench queried, challenging the constitutional basis for the Governor’s involvement in determining the legitimacy of a session called by the Speaker.
Expressing strong disapproval, the Supreme Court declared that the Governor of Punjab is “playing with fire” by obstructing the progression of bills duly passed by the elected Assembly. The court directed the Governor to promptly decide on the bills awaiting his assent after being approved by the state legislature.
Highlighting the parliamentary form of government, the bench emphasized, “We are governed by a parliamentary form of government where the government is accountable to the legislature. The Governor is a titular head of the state.”
The bills awaiting the Governor’s assent include the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Bill, 2023.
Governor Banwarilal Purohit’s objection to the special session of the Assembly on June 19-20, citing it as “illegal” and against legislative procedures, has triggered a legal standoff. The Governor’s assertion that the October 20-21 session was “bound to be illegal” further escalated tensions with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government led by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann.
In response to the Supreme Court’s intervention, the Punjab government argued that the Governor’s prolonged inaction on the bills, despite limited powers under Article 200 of the Constitution, has paralyzed the administration, deeming it “unconstitutional inaction.”
