The bench underscored that the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil their duty would not be a justification for another to not fulfil their distinct duty under the Constitution. .—–.THE Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the Punjab governor had no reason for seeking legal advice on whether to summon the budget session of the state legislative assembly, as he was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state recommending summoning of the budget session..A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha made these observations, even as the Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit, through the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, informed the court that the governor had passed an order earlier today convening the budget session on March 3, as had been originally requested by the Punjab government but refused by the governor..The development followed hours after the Punjab government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party's Bhagwant Singh Mann, approached the Supreme Court against the governor's refusal to act on the advice of the Punjab cabinet urging the governor to summon the house for the budget session on March 3..The bench also gave a dressing down to the Punjab Chief Minister, as it observed that Chief Minister Mann was duty-bound to furnish information asked for by the governor.."Governor has the right to seek information from the CM on the decisions taken and once such information is sought, the CM is duty-bound to furnish it. The tone and tenor of the letter by the CM and the tweet by CM leave much to be desired," the bench said..Commenting on the combative public discourse between Mann and Purohit over the conflict, the bench noted that while it was cognisant of free speech and expression, constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship, particularly in the context of constitutional dialogue between State functionaries..The bench added that the political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with a sense of propriety and maturity without indulging in a race to the bottom.."Unless these features are adhered to, constitutional principles will be put in jeopardy," the bench cautioned..The bench underscored that the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil their duty would not be a justification for another to not fulfil their distinct duty under the Constitution.
The bench underscored that the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil their duty would not be a justification for another to not fulfil their distinct duty under the Constitution. .—–.THE Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the Punjab governor had no reason for seeking legal advice on whether to summon the budget session of the state legislative assembly, as he was bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers of the state recommending summoning of the budget session..A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha made these observations, even as the Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit, through the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, informed the court that the governor had passed an order earlier today convening the budget session on March 3, as had been originally requested by the Punjab government but refused by the governor..The development followed hours after the Punjab government, led by the Aam Aadmi Party's Bhagwant Singh Mann, approached the Supreme Court against the governor's refusal to act on the advice of the Punjab cabinet urging the governor to summon the house for the budget session on March 3..The bench also gave a dressing down to the Punjab Chief Minister, as it observed that Chief Minister Mann was duty-bound to furnish information asked for by the governor.."Governor has the right to seek information from the CM on the decisions taken and once such information is sought, the CM is duty-bound to furnish it. The tone and tenor of the letter by the CM and the tweet by CM leave much to be desired," the bench said..Commenting on the combative public discourse between Mann and Purohit over the conflict, the bench noted that while it was cognisant of free speech and expression, constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship, particularly in the context of constitutional dialogue between State functionaries..The bench added that the political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable and have to be worked out with a sense of propriety and maturity without indulging in a race to the bottom.."Unless these features are adhered to, constitutional principles will be put in jeopardy," the bench cautioned..The bench underscored that the failure of a constitutional authority to fulfil their duty would not be a justification for another to not fulfil their distinct duty under the Constitution.
