The Punjab government has moved the Supreme Court against the delay in approval of two bills passed by its assembly in 2023 – the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill and the Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill. The state claims that the bills have been kept “in limbo” after Governor Banwarilal Purohit referred them to the President without any clear constitutional reason.
The Supreme Court, on Monday, said it will hear Punjab’s petition only after the five-judge constitution bench dealing with the Presidential reference gives its decision. The reference, sought by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143, seeks guidance on 14 questions arising from the Court’s April 8 ruling. That ruling set timelines for governors and the President to either approve, refuse, or withhold assent to state bills.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, said that the constitution bench’s ruling could resolve all issues raised in Punjab’s petition. The Court noted that the present case involves questions under Article 145, which cannot be handled by a smaller bench.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, told the Court that Punjab’s petition raises complex constitutional issues that require the larger bench’s consideration. Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Punjab, argued that the present hearing should be deferred, and the Union government’s interim application should be addressed later. The Court agreed that once the constitution bench delivers its decision, all other benches would follow that ruling.
The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, seeks to amend the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. It requires the statutory board to ensure that Gurbani from Sri Harmandir Sahib is broadcast live without interruption and available free of cost to all media outlets. The bill also bars advertisements for 30 minutes before and after the Gurbani broadcast.
The Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill, 2023, proposes changes to the Punjab Police Act, 2007. It aims to create an independent process for selecting and appointing the Director General of Police (DGP), reducing political or executive influence. The state argues that this is necessary to address Punjab’s specific law-and-order challenges.
Punjab contends that the Governor’s decision to refer the bills to the President violated the constitutional scheme. According to the state, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers unless there is a constitutional trigger or a breakdown of democratic governance. The state has also criticized the President’s “inaction” on the bills, saying that the April 8 Supreme Court ruling requires reasons to be provided if assent is refused or withheld.
The Presidential reference being considered by the constitution bench includes 14 questions on the powers and obligations of the President when dealing with state bills. The reference arose from the Court’s April 8 verdict, which imposed binding timelines on governors and the President. The judgment stated that inaction could lead to “deemed assent” under Article 142.
The April 8 verdict followed a petition from the Tamil Nadu government, which had accused its Governor of delaying action on 10 important bills. The Court ruled that governors must act “forthwith” or within one month on bills passed again by the assembly, and decide within three months whether to approve or reserve them for presidential consideration. The judgment described prolonged inaction as illegal and a subversion of the constitution, triggering debates on the limits of judicial review over high constitutional functionaries.
ALSO READ: PM Modi’s speech signals strong counteroffensive in demographic battle
The constitution bench, consisting of Chief Justice Bhushan R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar, has set aside nine days of hearings starting August 19 to decide the 14 constitutional questions. Once the reference is resolved, Punjab’s plea regarding its delayed bills can be taken up.
The Supreme Court made it clear that once the constitution bench delivers its decision, all other benches will follow the ruling. This ensures that Punjab’s petition, along with similar petitions from other states, will be handled consistently according to the constitution bench’s guidance.
The Punjab government’s move highlights concerns about delays in the legislative process and the balance of powers between the state and central authorities. Officials say that resolving such matters is crucial to maintaining the constitutional principle that governors must act on the advice of elected state governments while ensuring proper safeguards.
In conclusion, Punjab’s two bills remain pending because of delays in assent by the Governor and President. The Supreme Court will hear the state’s petition after the constitution bench delivers its judgment on the Presidential reference. The outcome is expected to clarify timelines, powers, and responsibilities for both governors and the President, potentially resolving similar disputes across the country.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash