Punjab Govt versus Governor: Supreme Court to hear Punjab's plea against Governor over Bill delays
New Delhi, November 6: The Supreme Court on Monday scheduled a hearing for November 10 to address the Punjab Government's complaint against the Governor for delaying the granting of assent to Bills.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised concerns about why such matters end up in the highest court and suggested that they should be resolved through discussions between the government and the Governor.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and including Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, listed the matter for Friday and requested an update on the status of the pending Bills. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Punjab Governor has taken action, and an updated status report on the pending Bills will be submitted soon. The apex court was informed that out of the seven pending Bills, two have already received clearance from the Governor.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing the Punjab Government, explained that the speaker had reconvened the Vidhan Sabha, and the Governor had not granted assent to seven Bills passed by the entire Vidhan Sabha.
The Supreme Court also noted that delays in granting assent had occurred in another state and questioned why such matters were being brought to the Supreme Court. The court expressed the view that these issues should ideally be resolved through communication between the governor and the government, rather than reaching the Supreme Court.
The court commented that the governor should not wait for a Supreme Court intervention to take action and suggested that both the government and the governor should engage in some introspection.
The case before the court concerned the Punjab Government's petition regarding the governor's delay in approving bills passed by the state government. The Punjab Government claimed that seven bills, including fiscal bills, were passed by the Vidhan Sabha and submitted to the governor, but the governor had not handled them as required by Article 200 of the constitution.