Constitution of India – Art. 200 – The Governor is a symbolic head and cannot withhold action on Bills passed by the State Legislature:

Held: The Governor, as an unelected Head of the State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers – However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures – Consequently, if the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Art. 200, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration – In other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Art. 200 must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso – If the first proviso is not read in juxtaposition to the power to withhold assent conferred by the substantive part of Art. 200, the Governor as the unelected Head of State would be in a position to virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse – Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance – Therefore, when the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Art. 200, the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the first proviso – The Governor is u/Art. 168 a part of the legislature and is bound by the constitutional regime – In the instant case, the Governor of Punjab was not empowered to withhold action on the Bills passed by the State Legislature and must act “as soon as possible” – In any event, it was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the Vidhan Sabha because (a) there is a distinction between adjournment and prorogation; and (b) the Speaker has exclusive jurisdiction over regulating the procedure of the House. [Paras 25, 28]

Constitution of India – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly) – r.16 – Reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has not been prorogued is permissible in law and is within the exclusive domain of the Speaker:

Held: Rule 16 indicates that the Vidhan Sabha may be adjourned by its own order from time to time – This is however subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules – In terms of the first proviso, a motion for adjournment either to a day or sine die requires consultation with the Speaker – Significantly, in terms of the second proviso, the Speaker is empowered in public interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha earlier than the date to which it has been adjourned or at any time after it has been adjourned sine die – So, it is clear that the Rules of Procedure expressly recognize a situation where the Speaker reconvenes a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which has been adjourned sine die but not prorogued – The provision empowering the Speaker to reconvene a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha on any date after it has been adjourned sine die is not unique to the Rules of Procedure of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha – A review of the Rules of Procedure of State Legislatures for various states indicates that almost all of them contain an identical or similar provision – Therefore, it was legally permissible for the Speaker to reconvene the sitting of the Vidhan Sabha after it was adjourned sine die without prorogation – Further, the Speaker was empowered as the sole custodian of the proceedings of the House to adjourn and reconvene the House. [Paras 34, 35, 41]

Constitution of India – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly) – The dispute in the present case essentially bears upon the Governor having detained four Bills which were passed by the Vidhan Sabha on 20.06.2023:

Held: There is no valid constitutional basis to cast doubt on the validity of the session of the Vidhan Sabha which was held on 19.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 20.10.2023 – Any attempt to cast doubt on the session of the legislature would be replete with grave perils to democracy – The Speaker who has been recognized to be a guardian of the privileges of the House and the constitutionally recognized authority who represents the House, was acting well within his jurisdiction in adjourning the House sine die – The reconvening of the House was within the ambit of Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure – Casting doubt on the validity of the session of the House is not a constitutional option open to the Governor – The Legislative Assembly comprises of duly elected Members of the Legislature – During the tenure of the Assembly, the House is governed by the decisions which are taken by the Speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation – Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Governor of Punjab must now proceed to take a decision on the Bills which have been submitted for assent on the basis that the sitting of the House which was conducted on 19.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 20.10.2023 was constitutionally valid. [Para 44]