'Dialogue Between Constitutional Functionaries Cannot Degenerate Into A Race To Bottom' : Supreme Court Reprimands Punjab CM, Governor

The Punjab Governor on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that he has summoned the budget assembly of Punjab assembly from March 3.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of Governor Banwarilal Purohit, made this statement before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha, which was hearing a petition filed by the Punjab Government against the refusal of the Governor to summon the assembly. The bench had specially assembled to hear this matter at 3.50 PM after Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the matter today before the CJI seeking urgent listing.

As soon as the bench assembled, Solicitor General placed on record the order issued by the Governor today by which the budget session has been summoned from March 3. In view of the Governor's decision, the petition does not survive, SG added.

Singhvi expressed anguish at the fact that the Government was forced to approach the Supreme Court for the Governor to summon the assembly. "The governor is supposed to function as per the constitution. If the governor, if he goes by discretion, a budget session would not convene. Does he understand the meaning of budget session?", Singhvi mounted a vehement criticism of the Governor's conduct.

The senior counsel said that the Governor is now making a "virtue out of necessity" after the State approached the Supreme Court. "Is this the way the Governor is supposed to act? He has hijacked the Constitution", he said.

In his turn, the Solicitor General stated that the Chief Minister had used extremely inappropriate language in his letters to the Governor.  The Governor did not refuse to summon the assembly but only said that he will take a decision after getting legal advice on certain statements made by the Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann. "Look at the level of discourse. Street level language is used!", SG exclaimed after reading out the CM's reply to Governor's letter seeking certain details as per Article 167.

'Some dereliction on both sides', says bench

At this point, the bench observed that as per Article 167, the Governor is entitled to seek the information from the Government and the Government is supposed to give such an information. At the same time, the bench added that when the Cabinet has given an advice to summon the session, the Governor is bound by that.

"Dr Singhvi, as per Article 167(b), when the governor asks you to furnish information - you're duty bound to furnish it to him. Ask one of your secretaries to respond. At the same time, Mr SG, once the cabinet says budget session has to be convened, he is duty bound", CJI Chandrachud said.

"There must be in our public discourse, a certain constitutional discourse. We may belong to different political parties, of course the governor is to be above politics. We have to have a constitutional discourse", CJI Chandrachud stated while reminding that both the CM and the Governor are constitutional authorities.

"From both sides there is a dereliction", Justice Narasimha weighed in.

In the order, the bench narrated the factual background of the issue. On February 13, 2023, the Governor had written to the Chief Minister seeking information regarding certain appointments and also regarding the decision taken to send some school principals to Singapore for training. The reply letter of the Chief Minister and a tweet made by him were considered objectionable by the Governor. Later, the Government wrote to the Governor seeking to summon the assembly. The Governor replied that he would decide on allowing the budget session only after getting legal advice on the tweets and statements made by the CM against the Governor, which were “extremely derogatory and patently unconstitutional". 

Although the reliefs claimed in the petition have been fulfilled in view of the Governor's latest order, the bench was constrained to make certain observations.

Bench makes observations about the Constitutional roles of Governor and Government

In the order, the bench mentioned about the duty of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor as per Article 167 of the Constitution.

 The bench also noted that the power of the Governor to summon the assembly as per Article 174 of the Constitution has to be exercised as per the aid and advice of the council of the ministers. This has been laid down by the Constitution Bench judgments in Shamsher Singh, Nabam Rebia.

"In view of the clear constitutional provision, there cannot be no manner of doubt that the authority which is vested with the Governor to summon the house is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. It is not a constitutional power which the Governor is entitled to exercise on his discretion".

In the present case, the Governor was advised to summon the house by a duly elected Government and hence the Governor was duty bound to do so. There was no occasion for the Governor to seek legal advice on the letter written by the cabinet seeking to summon the session.

Criticises the tone and tenor of letter of CM

The bench further observed that the tone and tenor in the letter of the Chief Minister "leaves much to be desired". At the same time, the "dereliction of the Chief Minister" is not a justification for the Governor to not summon the house as per the Constitutional provision, the bench added.

The Court said that the Constitutional dialogue between the functionaries should be done with "matured statesmanship".

"Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with a sense of sobriety and maturity without allowing the discourse to become a race to the bottom", the bench stated while hoping that such instances do not recur.

Case Title : State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 188

Constitution of India 1950 - Article 167- The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it-Not furnishing the information which was sought by the Governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) - Para 24

Constitution of India 1950- Article 174 - There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the Governor to summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Minsters. This is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion - Followed Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1 - Para 22

Two important aspects of Parliamentary democracy - There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship- Para 25

On maintaining civility in discourses between Constitutional functionaries- Political differences in a democratic polity have to be worked upon and sorted out with a sense of sobriety and maturity. The dialogue between constitutional functionaries cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be borne in mind, the realization of constitutional values may be placed in jeopardy-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. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to sub-serve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of equanimity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble to the Constitution- Para 26

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment