STATE OF PUNJAB versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 10-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 777 : 2023 INSC 1017
777
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 fi rst 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 fi rst proviso – If 
the fi rst 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 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
778
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 fi rst 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 fi rst proviso, a motion for 
adjournment either to a day or sine die requires consultation with the Speaker 
– Signifi cantly, 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]
779
Constitution of India – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of 
Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly) 
– The dispute in the present case esse

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.