Not only Tamil Nadu, 2023 judgment in Punjab governor case was also wrong: SC
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday issued a firm course correction on federal practice and gubernatorial powers, declaring that two 2023 rulings—one concerning Tamil Nadu and another arising from the Punjab governor case—were wrongly decided. At the heart of the Court’s intervention was a simple constitutional message: the Governor is a constitutional head, bound in almost all matters by the elected executive’s aid and advice. Discretion is the narrow exception, not the rule. By restoring fidelity to this principle and re-centering long-standing precedent, the bench sought to steady Centre–State relations and bring clarity back to legislative functioning across the States.
The Supreme Court’s rebuke focused on a failure to engage with controlling authorities. It said both 2023 decisions glossed over binding pronouncements delivered by larger benches in 1952, 1979, and 1983—decisions that shape how Articles 163, 174, 200, and related provisions must operate in practice. That gap, the Court explained, created doctrinal confusion and risked unsettling the Constitution’s carefully balanced design of responsible government.
What the Constitution Bench decided—and why it matters
– The bench held that larger-bench decisions from 1952, 1979, and 1983 remain the governing law on gubernatorial powers and cannot be sidestepped. Under the Court’s own doctrine of precedent, later benches are obliged to grapple with and follow such authorities.
– Reading the Constitution as a whole, the Court reaffirmed that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in summoning or proroguing the Assembly, processing bills, and conducting routine constitutional business. Only limited, clearly identified exceptions permit independent gubernatorial action.
– By characterizing the 2023 rulings as outliers, the Court restored doctrinal coherence and practical predictability, ensuring that constitutional processes are not derailed by unilateral interventions from Raj Bhavans.
A clear message runs through the ruling: constitutional offices must practice constitutional humility. The Governor’s role is supervisory and ceremonial in most matters; it is not an alternate executive center.
Re-reading the larger-bench line: 1952, 1979, 1983
Without turning the proceeding into a lecture on case citations, the bench emphasized the binding thread across three landmark decades:
– The 1952 decision outlined the early contours of responsible government, clarifying that unelected heads of state transact business in accordance with the people’s mandate expressed through the Council of Ministers.
– In 1979, the Court reaffirmed that gubernatorial discretion is exceptional, limited to expressly recognized situations necessary to protect the Constitution or address constitutional breakdowns.
– By 1983, the jurisprudence had further tightened the boundaries, underscoring that interventions which undermine the legislature’s functioning or the elected executive’s authority are disfavored.
These decisions collectively form a settled architecture. The 2023 departures, the bench held, stemmed from a failure to meaningfully engage with that architecture, warranting correction.
The heart of the Punjab governor case
At the center of the Punjab governor case was a dispute over summoning, proroguing, and conducting sessions of the State Legislative Assembly—and the extent of the Governor’s independent authority over these functions. The Constitution Bench has now clarified that the power to summon or prorogue the House is exercised by the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It is not a personal prerogative to be asserted at will.
The Court’s analysis restored a settled understanding: the Governor is the constitutional head of a parliamentary system. That role does not admit open-ended discretion to shape legislative calendars or to inject uncertainty into the conduct of House business. The bench concluded that the 2023 handling of the Punjab governor case deviated from these principles by failing to engage with binding larger-bench law—which, if ignored, can distort federal balance and invite unnecessary confrontation.
Implications for Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and beyond
The ruling has immediate and practical consequences:
– In Tamil Nadu, questions over gubernatorial delays related to bills and Assembly matters must now be read against the bench’s unambiguous endorsement of ministerial advice as the constitutional default.
– In the Punjab governor case, the course correction re-establishes procedural clarity on summoning and conducting Assembly sessions. Legislative timetables should not be hostage to unilateral gubernatorial decision-making.
More broadly:
– Governors are reminded to act promptly, transparently, and consistently with settled precedent.
– State executives gain a reinforced framework that shields legislative functioning and the bill-assent process from avoidable deadlock.
– High Courts and subordinate courts have a clear roadmap for resolving federal friction without drifting from larger-bench jurisprudence.
A reset on judicial discipline and precedent
The Constitution Bench also delivered an institutional message about how courts must treat their own precedents. By pointing out that the 2023 decisions did not meaningfully engage with larger benches, the Court underscored that adherence to a structured precedential hierarchy is not mere housekeeping—it is essential for stability. When courts or constitutional functionaries improvise around the Constitution’s settled rules, the result is uncertainty and conflict. The bench’s insistence on doctrinal continuity therefore protects both predictability in governance and the integrity of federal relations.
What changes on the ground
– Withholding or delaying action in areas tethered to ministerial advice will be increasingly difficult for Raj Bhavans to justify.
– Assemblies should face fewer uncertainties around convening, prorogation, and the scheduling of legislative business.
– Communications between State governments and Governors will likely become clearer and better documented, easing judicial review when disputes arise.
The bigger constitutional picture
This ruling does not rewrite the Constitution; it reasserts it. By reining in the 2023 deviations in both Tamil Nadu and the Punjab governor case, the Court lowers the temperature on recurring Centre–State flashpoints and strengthens the conventions necessary for parliamentary governance. The principle is plain: follow the constitutional text, respect larger-bench precedent, and keep the machinery of elected government moving.
For citizens, the payoff is fewer institutional standoffs and more energy devoted to governance. For constitutional offices, the message is discipline and humility: checks and balances are to be honored, not stress-tested to failure. For courts, the mandate is to resolve federal disputes within the scaffolding of established law.
Conclusion: A clarified path after the Punjab governor case
In the final analysis, the Supreme Court has tethered gubernatorial conduct back to the bedrock of responsible government. The Punjab governor case now stands as both a cautionary tale and a clarified guidepost: Governors must act on aid and advice, discretion must be rare and principled, and larger-bench precedent must govern. By restoring coherence to constitutional practice, the Court has reinforced cooperative federalism and reaffirmed respect for the people’s mandate—ensuring that, in both Punjab and Tamil Nadu, constitutional norms prevail over improvisation.
