The Supreme Court on Monday called for soul searching by the Governor in the States including by other constitutional functionaries on the discharge of their functions wondering why Governors start acting on the matters pending before them only when State governments knocks its (Supreme court) doors for intervention.

Heading a bench also comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud remarked: “There has to be a little bit of soul searching by all, by the Governors. Governors must act even before the matter comes to the Supreme Court. This has to come to an end when governors act only when matters reach the Supreme Court.”

Advertisement

The top court reprimand of the Governors in the opposition ruled States in the course of the hearing of a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party ruled Punjab government which had approached the top court against State Governor Banwarilal Purohit for sitting over four bills passed by the State assembly including one relating to Gurudwaras,  three others sent to him for recommendation to be introduced in the State assembly relating to fiscal issues.

While hearing the Punjab matter, CJI Chandrachud made a reference to the Telangana situation.

The former Attorney General and senior advocate KK Venugopal urged the bench to tag the Tamil Nadu petition, with the Punjab government’s petition, relating to inaction by the State Governor RN Ravi in clearing the bills passed by the State assembly and the orders and the policies of the State government.

The top court’s unease in dealing the matters seeking direction to the Governor -constitutional functionary – “This happened in another state also. Why does the party have to come to the Supreme Court? The Governor has to pass. You come to the Supreme Court then the Governor starts acting. This shouldn’t be. The governor of course has the power to reserve the Bill.”

However, the Chief Justice Chandrachud took exception to the way the assembly was adjourned sine die on March 22 and reconvened on June 26, wondering if the budget session of State assembly merges with the monsoon session.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said that the session could have been prorogued and reconvened.

Posting the matter for further hearing on Friday – November 9, when Solicitor General Tushar Mahta would appraise the court on the action taken by the Governor Purohit.  In the course of the hearing Solicitor General Mahta, appearing for the Governor Purohit, informed the court that he (Governor) has taken some decision on the matters pending before him.

In its order, the bench said that the Punjab government has stated that as many as seven bills including fiscal bills were passed by Vidhan Sabha and submitted to the governor.

Order further recorded that it is stated that the bills have not been dealt with by the Governor in the manner required by Art 200. In two bills the Governor has taken action. Senior advocate Singhvi submits that the ground taken by the governor is that the session was ought to have been prorogued on 22 March and thereafter reconvened.

Besides Punjab, the top court has already been moved by Tamil Nadu and Kerala seeking direction to the respective State Governors to act on the matters pending before them including th3e bills passed by the State assembly.