LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab & Anr.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 181Decided 28 Feb 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 302 of 2023
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

On 22 February 2023 the Punjab Cabinet advised the Governor to summon the Budget Session of the State Assembly for 3 March 2023. The Governor had earlier written to the Chief Minister seeking information on several matters (selection of school principals sent to Singapore for training, an appointment at a state corporation, and other issues). The Chief Minister replied with a tweet and a letter saying his government was answerable to "3 crore Punjabis" and not to a Governor appointed by the Centre. The Governor then said he would decide on summoning the Assembly only after taking legal advice, because the Chief Minister's reply was "patently unconstitutional" and "derogatory". With the session three days away, the State of Punjab moved the Supreme Court under Article 32. On the day of hearing, the Solicitor General placed on record a fresh order in which the Governor had summoned the Assembly for 3 March.

Decision Breakdown

Since the Assembly had been summoned, the petition's reliefs were substantially met, but the Court chose to spell out the constitutional position. Relying on the seven-judge decision in Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016), it held that the Governor's power under Article 174 to summon the House is exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, not at the Governor's discretion. There was "no occasion to seek legal advice" on whether to convene a Budget Session, and the Governor was "plainly bound" by the Cabinet's advice. At the same time, the Court held that under Article 167(b) the Chief Minister is duty-bound to furnish information the Governor asks for, that the "tone and tenor" of the Chief Minister's tweet and letter "leave much to be desired", and that withholding the information would be a dereliction of constitutional duty. Crucially, one functionary's failure to perform their constitutional duty does not justify another functionary refusing to perform theirs. The Court urged "mature constitutional statesmanship" and observed that dialogue between constitutional office-holders "cannot degenerate into a race to the bottom". The petition was disposed of.

Lesson Learnt

A Governor cannot delay or withhold summoning the State legislature when the elected Cabinet advises it: that is a formal duty, not a matter of personal discretion. Equally, a Chief Minister must supply information the Governor legitimately seeks; constitutional obligations run both ways, and neither side may use the other's lapse as an excuse for its own.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case