Constitutional officers cannot allow malice to prevail over dignity. it’s substance and import Supreme Court’s advice to the Governor and Chief Minister of Punjab That he should display mature statesmanship in sorting out his differences. Governor Banwarilal Purohit was indeed out of line when he indicated that he would act on the advice of the cabinet to convene the budget session of the Punjab Assembly only after he took legal advice on some of his earlier answers to Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s questions. This stand forced the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government to approach the court against its apparent refusal to convene the assembly session. However, the matter was settled without judicial intervention, as the court was informed that the Governor had summoned the House for its scheduled sitting on 3 March. Power of the Governor to summon the House under Article 174 of the Constitution is now famous. Even though it says that the Governor shall from time to time summon the House to meet “at such time and place as he thinks fit”, a Constitution Bench in Nabam Rebia (2016) ruled that the Governor may summon, prorogue and dissolve Could House only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It is hardly possible that Mr. Purohit is unaware of this, but the state of relations between the Raj Bhavan and the Chief Minister’s Office may have led him to take such a stand.
The Court’s observations also included Mr. Mann’s questionable status. In response to the governor’s question on sending some school principals to Singapore for training, he replied that he was responsible only to the people of Punjab and not to the governor appointed by the Centre. He was clearly wrong, as Article 167 stipulates that it is the duty of the Chief Minister to “furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may call for.. “. It is unfortunate that such cases of one-upmanship between Governors and Chief Ministers in various states are on the rise. Both should take care of the constitutional limits. It appears that some governors believe that they can extend their discretion to areas that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. The more significant reason for this is that Raj Bhavan officials take their role as the eyes and ears of the central government too literally, and often veer into the political arena. While they may indeed offer guidance, caution, or advice, they sometimes take on the role of commentator, critic, and even opposition. This does not bode well for constitutional governance.