A serious indictment

The Supreme Court’s Friday (November 10) ruling against Punjab Governor’s withholding assent to four bills passed by the state legislature should be seen as a serious indictment of the incumbent of the Raj Bhavan in Chandigarh.

The Punjab’s Bhagwant Singh Mann government had moved the apex court against inaction by Governor Mr. Banwarilal Purohit on four bills passed by the Assembly in June this year.

Purohit had been sitting over the bills casting doubts over the validity of the legislature session. Although in a separate comment the court has also criticised the Speaker for keeping the budget session in suspended animation over a long period, ‘you are playing with fire’ remark against the governor clarifies in no uncertain terms that the Governor’s role does not lay beyond a titular head.

The Chief Justice of India Y. P. Chandrachud observed that the Governor Purohit does not realise the gravity of what he is doing and is playing with fire by saying that the session is invalid.

He also raised the question if India would remain a parliamentary democracy if the governors decide about the validity of the legislature session, something that is prerogative of the speaker and the government.

He described the Governor’s inaction ‘a very serious matter’. It also held that it was within the jurisdiction of the Speaker’s power to adjourn the budget session convened in March 2023, instead of proroguing it and calling it back again in June.

The three judges made it abundantly clear that in a parliamentary democracy the supremacy of the legislature remains unchallenged and rules and conventions were not subject to change by titular heads.

Coming down heavily on the Governor, the judges cited the Article 200 of the Constitution according to which the Governors can either assent to the bill, or return the bill for reconsideration by the house or reserve the bill for President’s assent.

The CJI has sounded alerts even earlier on the increasingly disruptive role of the governors. In March he had criticised the former Maharashtra Governor for calling for a trust vote in Maharashtra as the Uddhav Govt had allied with a party (in this case Indian National Congress) in a coalition government.

He had interpreted that the act of the Governor can precipitate the fall of a legitimately established and functioning govt and seriously undermine the democracy.

Governor’s role has come into question frequently during the second tenure of the Narendra Modi-led National Democratic Alliance government. Raj Bhavans have been seen to be impeding the implementation of the decisions of the governments in Tamil Nadu and Kerala as well.

The bill passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly seeking its exclusion from the NEET has been waiting Governor K. N. Ravi’s assent interminably. The Stalin government has also flagged the issue of Governor not acting upon its recommendation to grant remission to certain convicts.

The role of governor has also been contentious between Government and the Governor Arif Mohammed Khan in Kerala.

While earlier Mr. Khan has been trying to appropriate executive powers in matters of appointing faculty members in the state’s university in his capacity as the Chancellor, the latest discord pertains to his advice to the Chief Minister Pinrayi Vijayan to drop Finance Minister K. Balagopal citing ‘withdrawal of his pleasure’. Khan has been acting beyond his brief in several matters raising serious questions from the Left Front Government.