Bench points to flaws in order on Punjab case in reply to reference

The Supreme Court on Thursday held that not only did the two-judge bench order in April in the Tamil Nadu governor case create "confusion and doubt" on the issue of gubernatorial and presidential assent to state bills, but also held that the apex court's 2023 ruling in the Punjab governor case departed from binding larger-bench precedents.

- Utkarsh Anand

The Punjab ruling was authored by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud; that bench also comprised justice JB Pardiwala, who penned the Tamil Nadu ruling earlier this year.

Underscoring principles of judicial discipline, the five-judge Constitution bench on Thursday declared that neither judgment had engaged adequately, or at all, with earlier decisions of larger benches in Kameshwar (1952), Valluri (1979) and Hoechst (1983) cases, all of which clearly delineated the limited constitutional options available to governors when presented with bills passed by state legislatures.

The Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar, noted that the 2023 Punjab ruling, which emphasised that governors "cannot keep bills pending indefinitely" and must act "as soon as possible", did not cite or analyse the previous judgments.