Supreme Court of India· 28 February 2023

Does one constitutional authority's failure to perform its duty justify another in declining to perform its own?

STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2023 INSC 181 · Writ Petition (Civil) No 302 of 2023
Coram: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.174 Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. The failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfil its own constitutional obligation. The Chief Minister's dereliction under Article 167(b) therefore did not justify the Governor withholding the summoning of the House.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.174 — Art.167 — Art.32 — Governor — Summoning of the Legislative Assembly — Aid and advice of the Council of Ministers — Duty of the Chief Minister to furnish information — Constitutional functionaries — Constitution of India — Art.174 — Summoning the House — no discretion in the Governor — Held: The authority entrusted to the Governor to summon the House of the Legislature of the State is to be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and is not a constitutional arena in which the Governor is entitled to exercise his own discretion. (¶22) Constitution of India — Art.174(1) — legal advice no answer to the Cabinet's advice — Held further: There is no occasion to seek legal advice on whether or not the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly should be convened; once the Council of Ministers has tendered its advice, the Governor is plainly bound by it. (¶23) Constitution of India — Art.167(b) — Chief Minister's duty to furnish information — Held further: Once the Governor calls for information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it, and withholding it is plainly in dereliction of that constitutional duty. (¶24) Constitution of India — Art.167 — Art.174 — obligations of constitutional functionaries are not reciprocal conditions — Held further: The failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil its obligation under a distinct provision furnishes no justification to another to decline to fulfil its own, and constitutional discourse must be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship. Petition disposed of. (¶25, 27)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 24Having said this, it would also be necessary to underscore that both the Chief Minister and the Governor are constitutional functionaries who have specified roles and obligations earmarked by the Constitution. The Governor has a right to seek information from the Chief Minister in terms of Article 167(b) on matters relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation. Once such information is sought, the Chief Minister is duty bound to furnish it. The tone and tenor of the tweet and the letter by the Chief Minister leave 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(b). 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 constitutional obligation to summon the House for its Budget Session in terms of the advice which was tendered by the Council of Ministers. It was after the institution of the petition under Article 32 that the Assembly was summoned.

Paragraph 25The genesis of the controversy has required the intervention of this Court at two distinct levels: first, to ensure that the constitutional duty of the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to summon the Legislative Assembly is fulfilled without delay or demur; and second, to ensure that the obligation of the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor in terms of Article 167(b) of the Constitution is fulfilled. There are two equally important aspects for the functioning of a parliamentary democracy. First, the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its obligation under a distinct provision of the Constitution does not furnish a justification to another to decline to fulfill its own constitutional obligation. Second, while this Court is cognizant of the importance of free speech and expression and the fundamental value embodied in Article 19(1)(a), it becomes necessary to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship.

Acts & Sections

Art.174 Constitution of IndiaArt.167 Constitution of IndiaArt.32 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of STATE OF PUNJAB v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB & ANR. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Article 174 of the Constitution, must the Governor summon the State Legislative Assembly on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?Can a Governor defer summoning the Budget Session in order to take legal advice on the Chief Minister's communications?Under Article 167 of the Constitution, is the Chief Minister bound to furnish information called for by the Governor?Why does Article 167 require the Chief Minister to furnish information to the Governor?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections