Supreme Court criticises Punjab CM, governor over budget session controversy

The Supreme Court on February 28 criticised Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Singh Mann and governor Banwarilal Purohit for not performing their constitutional duties while hearing a plea by the state government alleging that the governor ‘refused’ to summon the budget session of the state legislature slated to begin on March 3.

While the controversy was put to rest at the very beginning of the hearing after solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the court that Purohit had indeed summoned the budget session on the stipulated date, the court took the opportunity to criticise the conduct of the two state leaders.

It was argued in the court that when Mann sought the governor’s permission to summon the assembly, Purohit replied that he needed to get legal advice over a "derogatory letter" that the CM wrote to him. The governor had sought certain details from the CM on his recommendation for a foreign study tour but Mann wrote an allegedly derogatory letter to the governor and also took to Twitter and wrote about it, the court heard. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud then called for a more civil discourse between the constitutional functionaries and said "communications between constitutional authorities have to have a constitutional discourse, such statements cannot be made”.

The court observed that while governor has the right to seek information from the CM on decisions taken by the government, the CM is duty-bound to furnish it. The order noted that the tone and tenor of the letter and tweet by the CM left much to be desired. It said “not furnishing details sought by the governor is against the constitutional duty of the CM”.

The court also said that there was no occasion for the governor to seek legal advice on whether to convene the budget session, as he was bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The court noted that the governor too is duty-bound to call for the budget session when he is advised so by the council of ministers.

Before disposing of the case, the court observed that while political differences are acceptable in a democratic nation, they have to be worked out with a sense of propriety and maturity without having to face such a situation. Unless such practices are adhered to, constitutional principles will be put to jeopardy, it said.