E-Paper
Punjab government moves SC against governor over delay in nod to bills
The Bhagwant Mann government also sought directions from the top court to the governor to approve all pending legislations forwarded by the assembly
New Delhi
The Punjab government has moved the Supreme Court against governor Banwarilal Purohit over alleged delay in clearing various bills approved by the assembly, saying such “unconstitutional” inaction has brought the entire administration to a grinding halt.
The Bhagwant Mann government also sought directions from the top court to the governor to approve all pending legislations forwarded by the assembly.
There was no immediate reaction available from the Raj Bhawan on the state government’s move at the time of filing this report. However, on Sunday, Purohit said he will examine all the bills on merit in the larger interest of the welfare of people of the state.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government has been locked in a standoff with the governor over various issues for the past one year, including the Raj Bhawan’s pending assent to the legislations.
In its petition filed through advocate Nupur Kumar, the AAP government said seven bills are pending with the governor since June, of which three are money bills, requiring urgent clearance.
After the two-day (October 20 and 21) sitting of the assembly was announced by the state government, the Raj Bhawan strongly objected to summoning of the House as an “extension of the budget session”. In a letter to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha secretary on October 13, the governor’s office wrote that any such extended session is bound to be “illegal”, and any business conducted during such sessions is “unlawful, and ab-initio void”.
On October 19, the governor withheld his approval for the three money bills, which pertained to imposition of the GST on online gaming and establishment of GST Appellate Tribunal among other things, hours before the two-day meeting of the state assembly was to start on October 20. He also warned the Aam Aadmi Party government that if it continued with the “patently illegal session”, he would be compelled to consider an appropriate course of action, including reporting the matter to the President.
Mann responded by announcing that his government would move the apex court against the governor for refusing to approve the bills. The government also had to curtail the assembly proceedings just after they began, and the House was adjourned side die on October 20.
The government claimed that such a delay in clearing the bills is unconstitutional and sought an urgent direction to the governor to clear the legislations.
The AAP government also said that the governor has restricted powers under Article 200 of the Constitution and cannot indefinitely sit on the bills forwarded for assent.
The state also challenged the objections raised on certain bills, passed during the budget session of the House, by the governor. It said that the passage of the bills was within the prerogative of the assembly speaker on which the governor could not raise any objection.
HT’s calls and texts to Punjab advocate general Gurminder Singh did not elicit any response.
This is not the first time that the AAP government in Punjab has approached the Supreme Court against the governor. In February this year, the Punjab government moved the top court challenging a February 23 communication issued by governor for seeking legal opinion on the Cabinet’s proposal to summon the House. The state sought a direction from the court for summoning the budget session.
Disposing of the petition on February 28, the SC said: “It is inconceivable that the budget session of the legislative assembly would not be convened. We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship will ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectation that constitutional functionaries must be cognizant of the public trust in the offices which they occupy.”
In 1974, in Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab case, a constitution bench of the top court had held that the governor, being a mere formal/ceremonial head, is bound to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers.
