Constitutional functionaries to conduct discourse with decorum, mature statesmanship: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily upon both the Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and Governor Banwarilal Purohit over the tussle on summoning of Budget session of Assembly from March 3 following acrimonious exchange of letters between them.

The top court said the Governor is bound to act in aid and advise of Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister of a state is also duty bound to furnish all information sought by the high constitutional functionary.

A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha emphasised that political discourse should not be degenerated to an abyss.

Also Read: A dangerous situation in Punjab

"Mature statesmanship would ensure that these incidents do not happen in the future, as constitutional functionaries are ultimately to act to subserve the interest of the citizens," the bench said.

The top court took up an urgent plea on behalf of Punjab government over the Governor's refusal to summon the Budget session, upon a mentioning by senior advocate A M Singhvi on behalf of the state government.

At the time of hearing at 3.50 pm, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Governor, submitted that the issue may not arise as the order has been issued by the Governor.

Singhvi questioned the Governor's decision to seek legal advice on a request made by the Cabinet to convene the Assembly session due to a letter to the Governor by the CM stating that he was answerable to 3 crore Punjabis only. The Governor had questioned the "random" selection of a delegation to visit Singapore.

"A constitutional authority is acting in ignorance of the Constitution. He is hijacking the Constitution," the counsel said.

Mehta, for his part, cited the February 13 letter by the CM, saying, "See the level of discourse. He said he answerable to 3 crore Punjabis only, by that logic not to this court also."

"From both sides, there is a dereliction. The tone and tenor of the letter has left much to desire...but there was no justification for the Governor not to summon the House," the bench said.

"Constitutional discourse should be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship particularly in the context of the constitutional dialogue conducted between constitutional functionaries. Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked with a sense of sobriety and maturity without allowing the discourse to degenerate into a race to the bottom,” the bench said.

The court pointed out the Governor does not enjoy discretionary powers under the Constitution's Article 174 in summoning the assembly, which has been settled in the Nabam Rebia case by the apex court’s constitution bench.

“It is inconceivable that the budget session of the legislative assembly would not be convened. One can only hope that mature constitutional statesmanship would ensure that such instances do not occur in the future as much as we reiterate our expectations that constitutional functionaries should be deeply cognizant of the entrustment of public trust in the offices, which they occupy,” the bench said.

It further said the public trust which is entrusted to them is intended to subserve the cause of our citizens to ensure the affairs of the nation are conducted with a sense of maturity so as to accomplish objects of the Preamble.