Supreme Court Upholds Lawmaking Power of State Legislatures and Defines Governor's Limits in State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary Case

In a recent judgment, State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Governor is a symbolic head of the State and cannot thwart the lawmaking power of the State Legislatures. The order reads, “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.” The matter was heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice JB Pardiwala. The SC bench also stated that “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.” It added, “Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor…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.”

Along with this, the SC also addressed the question of “Whether the Governor is bound to return a bill to the house after withholding assent or whether the Governor can simply say that he was withholding assent.” The bench clarified that the Governor cannot use its constitutional powers to stall the enactment of legislative bills. It added, “The Governor, as a guiding statesman, may recommend reconsideration of the entirety of the Bill or any part thereof and even indicate the desirability of introducing amendments. However, the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the advice of the Governor as contained in the message belongs to the legislature alone.” While delivering the judgment, the bench observed, “If the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso.”

Further, SC added, “If the first proviso is not read in juxtaposition to the power to withhold assent conferred by the substantive part of Article 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 the fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance. Therefore, when the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the first proviso.” The SC bench concluded the judgment stating, “We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to the manner in which the Governor will exercise his jurisdiction on the Bills in question presented to him. However, he must act in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution.”