Summary
The Supreme Court held that Punjab’s Speaker could reconvene sittings after adjournment sine die because the session had not been prorogued. The Governor could not question those sittings’ validity to leave Bills pending indefinitely. He was directed to decide on the Bills consistently with Article 200, without the Court prescribing the decision on any particular Bill.
Issues
- Whether the Governor could withhold action indefinitely on Bills passed by the State Legislature.
- Whether the Speaker could reconvene a session adjourned sine die but not prorogued.
- What relief followed for the pending Bills and the Governor’s objection to the sittings.
Provisions considered
- Article 200 and its provisos, Constitution of IndiaWithholding assent to a non-Money Bill entails returning it with a reconsideration message as soon as possible. The Governor cannot leave legislation pending indefinitely, and cannot withhold assent after reconsideration and repassage as specified in the first proviso. (¶ 19–28)
- Article 207(1), Constitution of IndiaThe Court distinguished recommendation for introducing financial legislation from the return procedure under Article 200, which excludes Money Bills. (¶¶ 5, 26)
- Articles 174 and 208, Constitution of IndiaAdjournment interrupts a session whereas prorogation ends it. The Assembly’s procedural rules validly allowed the Speaker to reconvene sittings in the continuing session. (¶ 29–37)
- Rule 16, especially the second proviso, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan SabhaThe Speaker could, on the stipulated public-interest basis, reconvene the House after adjournment sine die; the June and October sittings were within that power. (¶¶ 33–35, 40–44)
- Article 212, considered with Article 122, Constitution of IndiaThe Speaker controls internal procedure, and legislative proceedings are protected from challenge based on procedural irregularity. The Governor’s objection did not invalidate the reconvened sittings. (¶ 38–44)
Held
- The Governor is a constitutional head acting on ministerial advice except where constitutional discretion is entrusted. His powers cannot be used to thwart the elected legislature’s normal lawmaking function. (¶¶ 15–18, 23–25)
- The first proviso to Article 200 accompanies the withholding-of-assent option for a non-Money Bill. It requires prompt return with a message for reconsideration; the legislature may repass the Bill with or without amendments, after which assent cannot be withheld under that proviso. Indefinite inaction is constitutionally impermissible. (¶ 19–25)
- Adjournment sine die does not itself prorogue a session. Punjab’s Assembly had not been prorogued, and Rule 16 authorised the Speaker to reconvene its sittings within the same session. (¶¶ 29–37, 40–41)
- Regulation of the House’s internal business lay with the Speaker, subject to the Constitution and rules. There was no valid constitutional basis for the Governor to cast doubt on the June and October sittings and use that objection to defer action on the Bills. (¶ 38–44)
- Seeking a judicial declaration in response to the Governor’s objection did not amount to the State conceding uncertainty about the sittings’ validity. (¶ 42)
- The Governor had to decide on the pending Bills on the basis that the relevant sittings were constitutionally valid. The Court expressed no opinion on the specific decision to be taken on each Bill, requiring only compliance with Article 200. (¶ 44–45)
Result
Petition and pending applications disposed of. Governor of Punjab directed to decide on the Bills consistently with Article 200, treating the sittings on 19 June, 20 June and 20 October 2023 as constitutionally valid. No particular outcome on any Bill prescribed.