Supreme Court pulls up Punjab Governor, CM, for dereliction of their Constitutional duties

Hold  your  Constitutional  discourses with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship: Supreme Court tells Punjab Governor, CM

The Apex Court in a landmark direction has reminded  the Punjab Governor Banwari Lal Purohit and Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann of their Constitutional obligations.

This landmark direction will also set at rest similar controversies facing other States where the elected governments have been up in arms against the actions of governors.

Hearing a special petition filed by the Punjab Government against the Governor for overlooking the Punjab Council of Ministers’ decision to convene Budget session from March 3, the Supreme Court  minced no words in telling the Governor and the Chief Minister  that constitutional discourse had to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.

After Tuesday’s verdict, the Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann lauded the Supreme Court for its “historic” decision and “saving the existence of democracy”, saying the upcoming state Assembly session would now go on without any obstruction.

The verdict also conveyed a strong message  for other States facing similar discords between the Governors and the Chief Ministers.

“Thanks for the historic decision of the honourable Supreme Court to save the existence of democracy in Punjab…now the voice of 3 crore Punjabis ‘Vidhan Sabha session’ will go on without any hindrance,” Mann tweeted in Punjabi.

The Apex Court held that the governor and the chief minister are constitutional functionaries with specified roles and obligations earmarked by the Constitution. It observed that there was a dereliction of constitutional duty by both.

The constitutional crisis over Punjab Governor Banwari Lal Purohit’s refusal to summon the Budget session of the Assembly from March 3 was blown over on Tuesday with the Supreme Court saying that the Governor was duty-bound to follow the advice of the state Cabinet on the issue.

“It was simply inconceivable to suggest that the Budget session will not be convened. There has been dereliction from both the sides,” the Bench headed by Chief Justice observed.

It also held that the language used by the Chief Minister in his letters to the Governor was inappropriate. The Bench disapproved of the conduct of both the Governor and the Chief Minister for letting their political differences come in the way of their Constitutional duties.

“The Budget session will not be convened is simply inconceivable… from both sides there is dereliction,” said the Bench, which also included Justice PS Narasimha.

While hearing the Punjab Government’s  petition, the Bench cited Constitution Bench judgments to emphasise that the Governor’s power to summon the Assembly under Article 174 of the Constitution had to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

“In view of the clear constitutional provision, there can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is vested with the Governor to summon the House is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It’s not a constitutional power which the Governor is entitled to exercise on his discretion,” the Bench said. The top court said the CM was also duty-bound to furnish information sought by the Governor.

“Under Article 167(b) of the Constitution, when the Governor asks you to furnish information, you’re duty-bound to furnish it. Ask one of your secretaries to respond. At the same time, once the Cabinet says the Budget session has to be convened, he is duty-bound,” the Bench said, terming his tweets and statements against the Governor “extremely derogatory and patently unconstitutional”.

The top court said the tone and tenor in the letter of the CM “leaves much to be desired”. At the same time, the “dereliction of the CM” was not a justification for the Governor to not summon the House, the Bench said.

“The failure of one constitutional authority to fulfil his duty will not be a justification for another not to fulfil his distinct duty under the Constitution,” it said.

At the outset of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the top court that Governor Purohit had already summoned the House for the Budget session from March 3 and that the Punjab Government’s petition had become infructuous.

“The Governor is now making a virtue out of necessity after the state approached the SC. Is this the way the Governor is supposed to act? He has hijacked the Constitution,” senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi told the Bench.

The Bench said, “Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with a sense of propriety and maturity without having to race to the bottom. Unless these features are adhered to, constitutional principles will be put to jeopardy.” “There must be in our public discourse, a certain constitutional discourse. We may belong to different parties, the office of the Governor is not from a party… we have to have a constitutional discourse,” it noted.

Singhvi  held that  the Punjab Government was forced to move the SC due to the Governor’s refusal to summon the Assembly for the Budget session. Mehta pointed out that the CM had used extremely inappropriate language in his letters to the Governor.

The Solicitor General said the Governor did not refuse to summon the Assembly but only said that he would take a decision after getting legal advice on certain statements made by the CM. “Look at the level of discourse. Street language is used…, Mehta said about the CM’s reply to the Governor’s letter seeking certain details.

Prabhnoor Kaur