Calling for a “little bit of soul searching”, the Supreme Court said it will hear the matter next on November 10. The Supreme Court on Monday asked why states need to come to courts against Governors for keeping bills pending and said “Governors must act” before the issue reaches the courts. A three-judge bench, presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, was hearing a plea by the Punjab government saying Governor Banwarilal Purohit had kept as many as seven Bills pending. “This happened in the case of Telangana also. Why do parties have to come to the SC? The Governors must act before it comes to the SC… Only after they come to the SC, that the Governors start acting. This has to stop,” CJI Chandrachud said. Fixing it for hearing next on November 10, the court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for Governor Purohit, to apprise it of “the action which has been taken by the Governor” by then. CJI Chandrachud also called for a “little bit of soul searching” by everyone to resolve such issues. “There is a little bit of soul searching required by the Chief Ministers, there is a little bit of soul searching required by the Governors. Because Governors also cannot be oblivious to the fact that they are not elected representatives of the people. The Governor can either withhold his assent, refer it to the President, or they are duty bound they can return it once. And particularly on money bills,” said CJI Chandrachud. CJI Chandrachud said, “Honestly my concern is this. Why should parties be required to move the Supreme Court for the convening of a Budget Session? We are a democracy which has been in operation now since the birth of the Constitution. There are matters which have to be sorted out between Governors and Chief Ministers. We are available. We will ensure that the Constitution is complied with. But surely this is something which the Governor and the Chief Minister…”. Appearing for the Punjab government, Senior Advocate A M Singhvi said, “This is a very strange case where a Governor has kept 7 bills…They are fiscal bills, affiliated college bills etc..The argument is strange, that it has been adjourned sine die. Therefore, I must start the session again. The session was admittedly only prorogued. After prorogation, the Speaker has the full power of recalling the session”.

Singhvi added, “It’s never happened in constitutional history. And prorogation is a well-known term which allows the Speaker to reconvene”. He submitted that Article 200 makes the assent to a bill mandatory and says the Governor shall not withhold assent. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “The Governor has intimated that all bills have been appropriately dealt with and decisions taken. If that would have been stated, possible petitions would not have been required”. The SG also agreed the court should be informed about the action taken by the Governor.

“One thing I would agree with Singhvi is that there are certain astonishing things happening in constitutional history…keeping the Assembly alive without any proroguing or adjourning so that whenever you want to abuse people, you gather and abuse, claim privilege etc,” said Mehta. “It’s astonishing. Never happened in the history of Indian democracy. Happening in two states. I will place before Your Lordships the position that this is unnecessary litigation,” he added.