The Supreme Court of India made an important observation on Thursday about two recent judgments related to the powers of state governors. The court said that the ruling given earlier this year in the Tamil Nadu governor case, and the ruling given in 2023 in the Punjab governor case, were both incorrect because they did not follow the decisions made by larger benches of the Supreme Court in earlier years.
A five-judge Constitution bench made this announcement while discussing how governors and the President should deal with state bills passed by state legislatures. The bench said that the two recent rulings created “confusion and doubt” because they did not properly consider the older, binding judgments given in 1952, 1979, and 1983. These older judgments had already clearly explained what options a governor has when a bill is presented to them by the state legislature.
The bench consisted of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurkar. They said that the Supreme Court must follow earlier decisions given by larger benches. This is an important rule of judicial discipline. When smaller benches do not follow larger benches, it creates confusion in the law and causes difficulty in governance.
The Constitution bench said that the judgments in the Tamil Nadu and Punjab cases did not properly discuss or analyse three major earlier decisions:
Kameshwar Singh case (1952)
Valluri case (1979)
Hoechst case (1983)
All three of these cases were heard and decided by larger benches. The law is clear that judgments by larger benches must be followed by smaller benches. However, the rulings in the Tamil Nadu and Punjab cases were given by smaller benches and did not follow these important earlier rulings.
The 2023 Punjab judgment was written by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice JB Pardiwala was also a part of that bench. Interestingly, Justice Pardiwala later wrote the judgment in the Tamil Nadu case as well. But the Constitution bench pointed out that both judgments forgot to apply the correct rule of precedent.
The Punjab judgment had strongly criticised the governor for keeping bills pending for a long time. The bench had held that under Article 200 of the Constitution, governors must act “as soon as possible.” It had said that governors cannot delay or keep bills pending endlessly because it would allow unelected officials to block the work of elected governments.
However, the Constitution bench said that although the Punjab ruling raised a valid democratic concern, it did not follow the earlier larger-bench rulings. Those earlier rulings had already set out the three constitutional options available to a governor when a bill is sent to them:
Give assent to the bill.
Withhold assent and return the bill to the legislature with a message (except for money bills, which cannot be returned).
Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration.
The bench said that these are the only three options the Constitution provides, and no other conditions or timelines can be added unless the Constitution itself mentions them.
The Constitution bench emphasised that the older judgments had already clarified these points. They did not discuss timelines or the meaning of “as soon as possible,” because the issues before them were different—such as land reform laws and the powers of Parliament when states give their consent under Article 252.
In contrast, the Punjab judgment tried to interpret the phrase “as soon as possible” to mean that the governor must act quickly within a reasonable time. But the Constitution bench said that this interpretation adds something new to the Constitution that is not supported by the earlier rulings.
ALSO READ: A simple daily breathing test can reveal early signs of lung trouble
ALSO READ: New strategies aim to reshape global tech growth and future manufacturing
The bench said that the approach taken in the Tamil Nadu case also created legal tension because it referenced the older cases but did not properly follow their reasoning. Instead, it placed the 2023 Punjab judgment in conflict with earlier, larger-bench decisions rather than maintaining the established position.
The bench said clearly:
“With due respect, both the Punjab and Tamil Nadu decisions could not have deviated from the binding precedents of larger bench decisions.”
The judges said that the precedential value of the 2023 Punjab decision was weakened because it did not refer to or analyse the earlier judgments. The court said that proper judicial discipline requires that all benches, especially constitutional benches, must follow the law already laid down by larger benches.
In the Punjab case, the then governor Banwarilal Purohit had kept several bills pending for months. Some of these were related to finances and changes in laws concerning the management of gurdwaras. The 2023 bench had directed the governor to make a decision without further delay and had expressed concern that delaying the bills could undermine democratic functioning.
But the Constitution bench said that courts cannot create a new rule that requires governors to act within a strict timeline unless the Constitution explicitly says so. Doing so would be like expanding Article 200 beyond what the Constitution and earlier rulings allow, which is not permitted.
The bench made it clear that even though the Punjab judgment raised real concerns about democratic functioning, it was still incorrect in law because it failed to follow binding precedent. The court said that constitutional rules must remain stable, predictable, and consistent.
The bench concluded that only the three constitutional options mentioned earlier remain valid. Courts cannot force governors to act within a specific timeframe unless the Constitution is amended or a larger bench says otherwise.
With this decision, the Supreme Court has clarified the law on gubernatorial powers and reaffirmed the importance of following earlier judgments given by larger benches.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash