Look into our order on Punjab Governor, Supreme Court advices Kerala Governor Khan

Bench also comprised Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.

Posting the Kerala government plea for hearing on 29 November, CJI Chandrachud pointed out that the Punjab order — delivered on 10 November — was uploaded on the top court’s website on Thursday night.

Related: Governors cannot ‘thwart normal course of lawmaking’, SC asserts

‘Judgement will cover Kerala issue also’

At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal said that the judgement in the case of Punjab would cover the issues arising in the stand-off between the Kerala government and the state Governor.

While KK Venugopal appeared for the Kerala government, Attorney General R Venkataramani appeared for the Union government. The top court had in the last hearing on 20 November asked Attorney General Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist it in the matter.

The Supreme Court, by its 10 November judgement relating to inaction by the Punjab Governor on the Bills passed by the state legislature and presented to him for his assent had said:

“The Governor, as an unelected head of the state, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the state legislatures. Consequently, if the Governor decides to withhold assent … the logical course of action is to … remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration” as soon as possible.

Stating that Article 200 of the Constitution — that provides for the “assent to Bills” by the Governor — must be read as a whole, the judgement said that if the Governor decides to withhold the assent to a Bill, then the only course to be followed by him is to send the Bill back to the legislature for reconsideration.

Related: SC seeks responses over Kerala plea accusing Governor

‘Contrary to constitutional democracy’

Withholding the assent and keeping the Bill to himself, the judgement said, suggests the Governor would be in a “position to virtually veto the functioning of the legislative domain by a duly elected legislature by simply declaring that assent is withheld without any further recourse”.

It further said: “Such a course of action would be contrary to fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy based on a Parliamentary pattern of governance. Therefore, when the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200, the course of action which is to be followed is that which is indicated in the first proviso. The Governor is under Article 168 a part of the legislature and is bound by the constitutional regime.”

The judgement said, “Governor is not at liberty to withhold his action on the Bills which have been placed before him. He has no avenue but to act in a manner postulated under Article 200.”

The Supreme Court had on 20 November, sought the Union government’s response to the Kerala government’s plea against the state Governor for sitting over three Bills, pending his assent.

Also issuing notice to the additional chief secretary to the Governor, the court had sought the assistance of Attorney General Venkataramani or Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in the matter.

Senior advocate Venugopal had told the court that in the case of all three Bills, the Governor had earlier promulgated the ordinance on them in the first instance but when they were enacted by the state Assembly, he was sitting over them.