Government and Governor should introspect

Regarding the increasing disputes between governors and state governments in the country, the Supreme Court has advised both the parties to introspect. Taking a tough stand on Governors’ delaying the bills passed by the legislature for a long time, the Court said, the Governor should not forget that he is not an elected authority. While hearing the petition of the Punjab government, which reached the Supreme Court on the complaint of the Governor, on Monday, a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra said, due to the Governors not taking action on the bills, the governments have to come to the court. . The bench also raised questions on the Punjab government’s decision to call the session again after indefinitely adjourning the assembly. The bench asked, what kind of introspection are both sides doing? We are the oldest democracy and these issues should be resolved between the Chief Minister and the Governor. It is noteworthy that the Governor of Punjab is in conflict with the government led by CM Bhagwant Mann on some issues. A few days after writing a letter to Chief Minister Mann, the Governor had approved two of the three bills sent to him on November 1. In this letter he had said, before allowing the bills to be introduced in the House, he would examine all the laws on their merits. Actually, to introduce a money bill, the approval of the Governor is required. The court also commented on the Speaker convening the session again after three months without adjournment.… The CJI raised questions on the manner of convening the assembly session in Punjab, saying that the assembly session was called in March and adjourned indefinitely. The Speaker called the House meeting again in June. In this way, the budget session and the monsoon session became one. Is this the plan given in the Constitution? You have to call a session in six months, right? The Solicitor General said that this process is against the scheme of the Constitution, because once the session is prorogued, its meeting cannot be called like this. The Chief Justice said that the government and the Governor need to introspect. We are the oldest democracy and such issues should definitely be resolved between the Chief Minister and the Governor. Our concern is that why should the parties come to the Supreme Court? The Governor should take action before the matter reaches the Supreme Court.… The court also ordered such petitions of Kerala and Tamil Nadu to be put up for hearing on Friday.

According to the Constitution (Article 163), barring a few exceptions, the Governor will discharge all his responsibilities with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. According to Article 168, the Governor is a part of the State Legislature. Where there are legislatures with two houses, he calls meetings of both the houses of the legislature and prorogues them. He can dissolve the State Assembly (Article 174). He addresses the members of the Legislature and can send messages (Articles 175-176). Without the permission of the Governor, no bill can become law, even if it is passed by both the Houses (Article 200). When a bill is passed by the Assembly and the Legislative Council (if any), it is presented before the Governor, on the advice of the Council of Ministers, so that he can give his assent to the bill as passed. The Governor may (ii) assent to a Bill, (ii) withhold assent, (ii) reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President, or (ii) as soon as may be after his message to a Bill, other than a Money Bill, Can be returned for reconsideration (Article 200). There is also a fifth possibility that is not often mentioned. That is, certain clarifications or information should be sought in relation to the Bill and the Bill should be returned to the Government and in fact it should be suggested that the advice previously given by the Council of Ministers for assent to the Bill should be reconsidered (Article 167 ).
If the bill returned by the Governor is passed again and sent to the Governor, then the Governor has to give his assent to it. The exercise of powers by the Governor cannot be challenged in the court.

Both the Punjab Government and the Governor should give priority to fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities while keeping the interest of the state at the forefront and leaving aside the path of conflict. In the case of the Governor, the observation of the Supreme Court that the Governor is not an elected authority is very important. The first responsibility of all the honorable people holding constitutional posts, whether it is the Governor, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chief Minister, is to maintain the dignity of their post and not to do anything that reduces the dignity and decorum of the post. be violated.