In a groundbreaking legal verdict addressing the Punjab Government’s dispute over the Governor’s inaction on four bills, the Supreme Court ruled on November 10, with the decision made public on November 23. The Apex Court emphasized that the reconvening of a Vidhan Sabha session, not officially prorogued, falls within the Speaker’s exclusive jurisdiction and is legally permissible.
The controversy arose when the Punjab Governor refused assent to bills passed during the June session, arguing that the session, an extension of the budget session, was inherently “illegal.” The Supreme Court clarified that if a session remains unprorogued, the reconvening of the Vidhan Sabha is within the bounds of legality.
Distinguishing Prorogation from Dissolution
Citing Article 174 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court underscored the distinct constitutional nature of the powers to prorogue and dissolve. It elucidated the disparity between a sitting and a session of the legislature. Referring to Article 174(1), which stipulates a maximum six-month gap between two sittings, the court highlighted the implicit recognition that multiple sittings can occur within one session.
The verdict elucidated, “Similar provisions have been made in relation to Parliament under Article 85 of the Constitution.”
Historical Precedent and Legislative Rules
The judgment provided instances where adjournment sine die did not lead to prorogation, with the Speaker subsequently reconvening sittings. It pointed out that the Rules of Procedure for the Punjab Vidhan Sabha expressly acknowledged the Speaker’s authority to reconvene a sitting adjourned sine die but unprorogued.
Additionally, the court noted that similar provisions existed in the Rules of Procedure for state legislatures across Rajasthan, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal. This affirmed the common practice of allowing the Speaker to call a sitting after adjournment sine die.
Speaker’s Decision is Conclusive
Emphasizing Article 122(2), the judgment stated that the Speaker holds powers to regulate procedure and conduct, with their decisions being final and binding on all members. Therefore, the court maintained that the Speaker’s decision to adjourn the house sine die and later resume sittings could not be questioned for procedural irregularities.
The court concluded, “The Constitution and established legislative practice distinguish between adjournment sine die and prorogation of the session of the House. In the case before us, the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on March 22, 2023, without prorogation. Therefore, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene the sittings of the House within the same session.”
Governor’s Role in Bill Assent
Lastly, the court asserted that if a Governor withholds assent to a bill, it must be returned to the legislature for reconsideration.
This landmark decision was reached in the case of The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 1224/2023.
