Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit wrote to chief minister Bhagwant Mann on Monday, stating that calling the special session of the state assembly on June 19 and 20 was “patently illegal”.

Purohit’s letter was in response to Mann’s jibe at him in public two days ago in which the latter remarked that it is “very unfortunate” that the governor does not know whether calling the special session was legal or illegal. The CM had said that during Capt Amarinder Singh government’s tenure, the assembly was called twice without the permission of the governor as the session was not prorogued. “We convened the session after consulting constitutional experts,” Mann added.

The governor, while sharing with Mann the crux of legal opinion received by Raj Bhavan from one of the leading constitutional experts in the matter, wrote that now nothing remains to be replied to his comments. In an earlier letter to Mann on July 17, Purohit had said that calling the two-day session was likely a “breach of law and procedure”, thereby casting doubt on the legality of the bills passed during the sitting of the House.

Fate of four bills hangs in the balance

Four bills — the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 2023, the Punjab Universities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and the Punjab Police Amendment Bill, 2023 and the Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Amendment Bill, 2023 — were passed by the state assembly last month. Their fate now hangs in balance with the governor questioning the legality of the session. The bills are pending with the governor who has three options – grant assent to the bills, which seems highly unlikely in the present scenario; withhold assent; or reserve them for the consideration of the President.

“The governor is entitled to take his own time. If the governor has said that the session is illegal, this is an unprecedented situation, and the only remedy available to the state government is to go to the court,” two legal experts told HT on the condition of anonymity.

The Punjab Assembly was adjourned sine die, and not prorogued, on March 22 after the budget session. The June 19-20 session was convened by the speaker under Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Punjab Legislative Assembly.

According to the legal opinion shared by the governor with the chief minister, it is within the speaker’s power to adjourn the meeting of the House sine die, but once the business of the meeting is over and nothing remains to be transacted, the meeting cannot be artificially kept alive.

“Once the business of the House, as specified in the List of Business to be transacted is over, the business of the meeting itself has come to an end. Unless it is evident that some aspect of business specified on the List of Business remained incomplete, there would be no cause to permit the speaker to adjourn the meeting, much less adjourn it sine die,” it read.

It further said that it is clear from the secretary, Vidhan Sabha’s letter dated June 14, 2023, the business of the adjourned meeting summoned was not only not connected with the budget, but in fact there existed no unfinished agenda which required the meeting. There was no justification to adjourn the budget session sine die when no business remained, or that even after three months, no urgent new business necessitated such an invocation of the adjourned meeting, much less as an extension of the budget session, according to the legal opinion.

It said the prejudice caused by not proroguing the House and by adjourning it sine die can be seen from the effect it has had on the bills passed. “Had the House been prorogued after the budget session and had these bills not been rushed through the adjourned meeting, they would have had to wait till the monsoon session to come up before the House. This would have enabled the bills to be properly studied and debated before they were enacted into laws,” according to the advice.

It further said that apart from the patent illegality that these bills did not concern the budget and could never be treated as an extension of the budget session, the greater flaw in the procedure was that the law was pushed through the legislature without public consultation or debate or taking into account the view of the stake-holders.

Guv seeks reply on corruption complaints

In his letter, Purohit also said that he has been receiving complaints of corruption and sought the reply at the earliest without fail, otherwise it would be deemed as “gross violation” of the constitution.

The governor also reminded Mann about the letters that were lying unattended with him and were referred to as “love letters” by the latter. “As per the constitution, the CM is duty-bound to furnish the information sought by the governor. Non-supply of the information is a clear violation of the Article 167 of the constitution,” the governor wrote, referring to the CM’s potshots taken at him which were not befitting the post. He also sought to remind Mann that the governor is a constitutional authority appointed by the President.