New Delhi: The latest stand-off between the Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab and Governor Banwarilal Purohit indicates a need of constitutional discourse, the Supreme Court said today, sending a strong message to both sides. "The failure of a constitutional authority to fulfill its duty would not be a justification for another to not fulfill his distinct duty under the Constitution," said Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who headed the bench hearing the case.
"We may belong to different political parties. The office of the Governor is not from a party, but we have to have a constitutional discourse," the Chief Justice added.
The case had stemmed from a face-off between the Governor and the Chief Minister over some information sought by Mr Purohit, who then delayed convening the state assembly for the budget session.
In a letter to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, the Governor had also indicated that he was in no hurry to summon the session and reminded the Chief Minister about his "derogatory" response to a letter from Raj Bhavan.
The court said the Chief Minister is constitutionally bound to furnish the Governor with information and "not furnishing the information would be against his constitutional duty". Moreover, "the tone of the Chief Minister left much to be desired... Yet on the other hand, the dereliction of the Chief Minister to do so would not allow the Governor to not do his Constitutional duty to summon the budget session," Justice Chandrachud said.
The Governor does not enjoy discretionary powers under the Constitution's Article 174 in summoning the assembly -- a point that has been settled in the Nabam Rebia case by a Constitution bench, the court pointed out.
Also, the Governor, while responding, referred to the cabinet's decision and the tweet and the letter dated February 14 and spoke of seeking legal advice. These were "patently unconstitutional... There is no question of seeking legal advice on convening the house. He was duty bound," the court said.
"Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with sobriety. Unless these principles are borne in mind, the effective implementation of constitutional values is liable to be placed in jeopardy," the Chief Justice said.
As the state government went to court, the Governor had issued notice to convene the assembly on March 3, pointed out Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Raj Bhavan. He pointed out that under the circumstances, the state's petition does not apply, since events have overtaken it.
The Chief Justice, however, indicated that there were several takeaways from the matter.
"While on the one hand, the administration of state is entrusted to a democratically elected Chief Minister, which in turn forces collective responsibility, the Governor as a constitutional authority appointed by government, is entrusted with duty to guide and counsel," said the Chief Justice of India.