In a recent landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed critical issues surrounding the powers and responsibilities of the Governor, Speaker, and State Legislature. The bench, composed of Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, ruled on matters related to the delay in gubernatorial action on approved bills and the Speaker's authority to reconvene adjourned sessions.

The court emphasized the symbolic nature of the Governor's role, asserting that the Governor lacks the authority to indefinitely withhold action on bills passed by the State Legislature. The judges cited Article 200 of the Constitution, stating that prolonged withholding of duly passed bills contradicts its provisions.

Additionally, the court affirmed the Speaker's power to reconvene a session that has been adjourned but not prorogued, differentiating between adjournment and prorogation. The bench underscored the Speaker's role as the guardian of the House, asserting that adjourning the House sine die fell within the Speaker's jurisdiction.

The case originated when Punjab invoked Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that the Governor had not given assent to four bills passed by the Vidhan Sabha and had failed to provide recommendations for specific Money Bills. Subsequently, the Governor recommended two out of three money bills while the cases were ongoing.

A key contention was the Governor's interpretation of adjournment sine die as equivalent to prorogation, a view the court deemed inappropriate. The court highlighted that the regulation of rules and conduct in the House is entirely within the Speaker's discretion, arguing that the Governor did not exercise constitutional powers appropriately.

The Secretary to the Governor countered, arguing that the Speaker lacked authority to adjourn proceedings sine die and contending that the budget session in June 2023 was not feasible.

The court established the principle that the Governor generally follows the guidance of the Council of Ministers, unless the Constitution confers discretionary authority. The Governor's role, the court maintained, is that of a constitutional leader providing guidance on constitutional matters.

When presented with a passed bill, the Governor has three options: to assent, withhold assent, or reserve the bill for the President's consideration. The court stressed that indefinitely keeping a duly passed bill pending is inconsistent with Article 200.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court resolved the petition based on the outlined reasons, marking a significant clarification of constitutional powers and limitations in the given context.

Case: State of Punjab v.  Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Another,

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1224 of 2023.