E-Paper
Not only Tamil Nadu, 2023 judgment in Punjab governor case was also wrong: SC
The Constitution bench declared that neither judgment engaged adequately, or at all, with earlier decisions of larger benches in 1952, 1979 and 1983
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that not only did the Tamil Nadu governor judgment in April this year create “confusion and doubt” on the issue of gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills, but that the court’s 2023 ruling in the Punjab governor case also departed from the binding larger-bench precedent.
The Punjab ruling was authored by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and that bench also had Justice JB Pardiwala, who penned the Tamil Nadu ruling.
Underscoring principles of judicial discipline, the five-judge Constitution bench declared that neither judgment had engaged adequately, or at all, with earlier decisions of larger benches in Kameshwar (1952), Valluri (1979) and Hoechst (1983) cases, all of which clearly delineated the limited constitutional options available to governors when presented with bills passed by state legislatures.
The bench, comprising CJI Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, noted that the 2023 Punjab ruling, which emphasised that governors “cannot keep bills pending indefinitely” and must act “as soon as possible”, did not cite or analyse the previous judgments. “On that count it fails to engage with the logic in those judgments,” noted the bench, adding that Kameshwar, Valluri and Hoechst were all delivered by larger benches and were binding.
“The precedential value of State of Punjab is dented on this count,” said the court, pointing out that the Tamil Nadu ruling, while discussing these earlier judgments, ultimately placed the 2023 Punjab decision in tension with them rather than adhering to the settled position.
“With due respect, both the Punjab and Tamil Nadu decisions could not have deviated from the binding precedents of larger bench decisions,” it declared. The court emphasised that Kameshwar, Valluri and Hoechst had long made clear that a governor has only three constitutional options - assent, withholding assent (with a return message, except in the case of money bills), or reserving the bill for the President.
In the Punjab case, the bench comprising then CJI Chandrachud and justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had taken a strong view against gubernatorial inaction, holding that the phrase “as soon as possible” in Article 200 imposed an implicit obligation of promptness. The then governor, Banwarilal Purohit, who had kept several Bills pending since June 2023, including fiscally significant legislation and amendments concerning the management of gurudwaras, was directed to make a decision without further delay.
The 2023 bench had warned that unbridled gubernatorial discretion “risks walking roughshod over a democratically elected government” and stressed that a governor “is not at liberty to keep the bill pending indefinitely.” Any contrary reading, it said, would allow the unelected head of state to effectively veto the functioning of the elected legislature.
But the Constitution bench made a sharp distinction on Thursday -- while the Punjab judgment addressed an undeniable democratic concern, it nevertheless overlooked binding larger-bench law. Crucially, the larger precedents did not examine timelines or the meaning of “as soon as possible” as a enforceable constitutional requirement because they were concerned with different contexts such as land reform, repugnancy, and the operation of Article 252 (power of Parliament to legislate for two or more states by consent).
Thus, the present bench held that prescribing judicial timelines or reading in an obligation of expedition amounted to expanding Article 200 beyond what the Constitution and precedent permit.
