LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2023 INSC 1017Decided 10 Nov 2023
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224 of 2023
Manoj Misra

Background

After an earlier round of litigation (in which the Supreme Court had already directed the Governor to summon the Punjab Vidhan Sabha's Budget Session), the Assembly was convened, adjourned "sine die" (without a fixed date to resume), and then reconvened by the Speaker on later dates to pass four Bills and consider three Money Bills. The Governor refused to act on these Bills, claiming, based on outside legal opinion, that reconvening a session that had been adjourned sine die was illegal and that the sessions themselves were void. The State of Punjab approached the Supreme Court directly, asking it to declare the sessions valid and direct the Governor to process the pending Bills.

Decision Breakdown

The Court distinguished between "adjournment" (a temporary pause, which can be sine die, i.e., without naming a future date) and "prorogation" (formal termination of a session by the Governor), only the latter actually ends a session. Reconvening a sitting that had merely been adjourned sine die, even without a specified date, is squarely within the Speaker's own exclusive domain to regulate the House's procedure, a matter courts do not ordinarily second-guess. The Governor, as a symbolic constitutional head, has no authority to unilaterally declare a duly conducted legislative session illegal or use that as a ground to withhold action on Bills. The Court held the three sessions (19 and 20 June, and 20 October 2023) were constitutionally valid and directed the Governor to now proceed to decide on the pending Bills, without expressing any view on how he should ultimately decide, other than that he must act consistently with Article 200 of the Constitution.

Lesson Learnt

A Governor cannot hold up a State's legislative business by unilaterally questioning the legality of how the Assembly conducted its own sessions: control over adjournment and reconvening of the House rests exclusively with the Speaker, and the Governor's role in giving or withholding assent to Bills does not extend to relitigating the validity of the legislature's internal procedure.

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