Reconvening A Sitting Of Vidhan Sabha Which Isn't Prorogued Permissible In Law & Within Exclusive Domain Of Speaker: Supreme Court

In its judgement pertaining to the Punjab Government's plea challenging the Governor's inaction on four bills passed by the state legislature, which was decided by the Supreme Court on November 10 but uploaded on November 23, the Apex Court stated that reconvening a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which had not been prorogued was permissible in law and is within the exclusive domain of the Speaker.

The Punjab Governor had withheld assent on the bills by stating that the June session, presented as an extension of the budget session, was “bound to be illegal”. Thus, the bills passed in the session could also not be assented to. In its judgement, the Supreme Court clarified that if the session had not been prorogued, reconvening a sitting in Vidhan Sabha was permissible. 

Power To Prorogue Distinct From Power To Dissolve

The Court made reference to Article 174 of the Constitution, highlighting that the power to prorogue and the power to dissolve were distinct constitutional concepts. It also clarified the distinction between a sitting of the legislature and a session of the legislature. It added that this is how, while specifying the maximum duration between two sittings, Article 174(1) stipulated that not more than six months should elapse between the last sitting of the legislature in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. Referring to this provision, the Supreme Court stated that–

"This implicitly recognizes that there may be more than one sitting of the legislature comprised in one session. Similar provisions have been made in relation to Parliament under Article 85 of the Constitution." 

Common Practice To Permit Speaker To Call A Sitting Of The House After It Is Adjourned Sine Die

To labour its point, the judgement also highlighted several instances where the adjournment of the sitting of the House sine die was not followed by a prorogation and the sittings of the House were reconvened by the Speaker. It added that even the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha (Punjab Legislative Assembly) expressly recognized a situation where the Speaker reconvenes a sitting of the Vidhan Sabha which had been adjourned sine die but not prorogued.

Further, it added that a review of the Rules of Procedure of State Legislatures for various states indicated that almost all of them contain an identical or similar provision. It stated–

"By way of illustration, to name a few, the Rules of Procedure for the State Legislatures of Rajasthan, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal expressly permit the Speaker to call a sitting of the House any time after it has been adjourned. A similar provision is also contained in the first proviso to Rule 15(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha."

Therefore, the bench held that it was common practice for the Rules of Procedure of State Legislatures and Parliament to permit the Speaker to call a sitting of the House after it had been adjourned sine die. The court said–

"The Constitution and established legislative practice distinguish between adjournment sine die and prorogation of the session of the House. In the case before us the Vidhan Sabha was adjourned on 22 March 2023 without prorogation. Therefore, the Speaker was empowered to reconvene the sittings of the House within the same session."

Decision Of Speaker Regarding Procedure Final 

The Court further observed that under Article 122(2) the Speaker was vested with the powers to regulate the procedure and conduct of business. Accordingly, his decision on the same was final and binding on every Member of the House. Thus, the validity of the Speaker adjourning the house sine die and then later directing to resume sittings could not be inquired into on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. The court added–

"Even when an adjournment takes place the Speaker is entrusted in public interest to call a meeting of the Vidhan Sabha before the date to which it has been adjourned."

Thus, it was held that 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," said the court.

In the judgement, the court also held that if a Governor decides to withhold assent to a Bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.

Also Read - Governor Can't Doubt Validity Of Assembly Session : Supreme Court Asks Punjab Governor To Decide On Pending Bills

Case Title: The State Of Punjab v Principal Secretary To The Governor Of Punjab And Anr. W.P.(C) No. 1224/2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1008

Click here to read the judgment