The level of discourse between a chief minister and the governor must not degenerate into a “race to the bottom”, putting the implementation of constitutional values and affairs of the nation in jeopardy, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday when it was called upon to adjudicate an ongoing confrontation between Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann and governor Banwarilal Purohit over summoning of the state budget session.
After a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud agreed on Tuesday morning to grant an urgent hearing during the day to the Punjab government’s petition against Purohit’s refusal to summon the assembly for the Budget session from March 3, the governor released a letter summoning the session on the said date.
Thus, when the petition was taken up at 3.50pm on Tuesday, the bench was informed by solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the governor’s office, that the session has now been summoned and the complaint of the state government does not survive anymore.
Even as the governor’s communication rendered the state government’s petition infructuous, the bench, which also comprised justice PS Narasimha, set about to define the contours of the powers and duties of both the constitutional functionaries while stressing on the need for the chief ministers and governors to have “mature statesmanship” and “decorum” in their communications with each other.
“Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with a sense of sobriety and maturity without allowing the discourse to degenerate to become a race to the bottom. Unless these principles were to be born in mind, the effective implementation of the constitutional values is liable to be placed in jeopardy,” the bench said.
“We reiterate our expectation that the constitutional functionaries must be deeply cognisant of the entrustment of public trust and the offices which they occupy. The public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to subserve the cause of our citizens and to ensure that the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of maturity so as to accomplish the objects of the Preamble,” it added.
In the facts of the present case, the court criticised the role of both Mann and Purohit, observing that they were both “derelict” in discharging their duties under the Constitution. It pointed out that Mann failed in performing his duty under Article 167 of the Constitution, as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader declines to furnish information to the governor regarding his queries on certain issues, which included some appointments, a scholarship scheme and selection of school principals for training to Singapore.
“Article 167 of the constitution enunciates the duties of the chief minister in furnishing information to the governor. Article 167 embodies duties which are passed on to the chief minister of every state, who has the duty to communicate with the governor…The framers of the constitution were prescient that while on one hand the administration of the state is entrusted to a democratically elected chief minister, the governor, as a constitutional authority appointed by the President, is entrusted with the duty to guide the council of ministers,” said the court in its order.
At the same time, it disapproved of Purohit’s refusal to summon the assembly session, citing the need to get legal advice over a contentious letter and a tweet by Mann targeting the governor. Mann’s letter and tweet said that he was not accountable to the governor, but only and to the three crore Punjabis. Refusing to answer the governor’s queries, the chief minster in his letter to Purohit on February 14 had also questioned on what basis are the governors in different states selected by the central government.
The bench said that although the language used by Mann in his letter and the tweet was “intemperate”, there was no justification for Purohit to cite the need to take a legal opinion when Article 174 of the Constitution, coupled with a raft of Supreme Court judgments, have laid down that the governor must act on aid and advice of the council of ministers in these matters..
“There can be no manner of doubt that the authority which is entrusted to the governor to summon the house or each House of the legislature of the state is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the council of ministers. This is not a constitutional power which the governor is expected to exercise in his own discretion the present case…the governor was duty bound to do so…the governor was plainly bound by the advice tendered to him by the council of ministers,” it said.
The court then proceeded to record in its order: “The tone and tenor of the tweet and the letter by the chief minister left much to be desired. Not furnishing the information which was sought by the governor would be plainly in dereliction of the constitutional duty which is imposed on the chief minister in terms of Article 167. Yet, on the other hand, the dereliction of the chief minister to do so would not furnish a justification for the governor not to comply with the plain constitutional obligation to summon the house for its budget session in terms of the advice which was tendered by the council of ministers.”
It emphasised that the failure of one constitutional authority to fulfil its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution would not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfil its own constitutional obligation.
“While this court is cognisant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value enshrined in Article 19, it necessary to emphasize that a constitutional discourse must be conducted with a sense of decorum and matured statesmanship…We can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship would ensure that such instances do not occur in the future,” said the bench in its order.
While there was no immediate reaction from Raj Bhavan, AAP chief spokesperson in the state, Malvinder Singh Kang, said: “It is a benchmark decision that the governor must not interfere with day-to-day affairs of the elected government and allow smooth functioning of the state for the betterment of common people.”
