The Supreme Court ruled that, as nominal heads of state, governors lack the authority to veto legislative actions of elected governments or to stall the passage of laws that have been duly passed by the legislature, in an effort to clearly define the governors' scope of action when a bill passed by a state assembly is sent for their assent.
The ruling dated November 10, which addressed the Punjab government's appeal against the governor, Banwarilal Purohit, was posted on the Supreme Court's website last week. The bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said unbridled powers to “unelected head of state” to sit indefinitely over bills “virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse”.
CJI Chandrachud, who authored the judgment, said, “Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a parliamentary pattern of governance.” The bench also held that the speaker enjoys absolute power for adjourning and proroguing the House. “It is the right of each House of the legislature to be the sole judge of the lawfulness of its own proceedings so as to be immune from challenge before a court of law. During the tenure of the assembly, the House is governed by the decisions which are taken by the speaker in matters of adjournment and prorogation,” the order said.