'You Are Playing With Fire': Supreme Court Pulls Up Punjab Governor Over Delay In Nod To Bills

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said the deadlock between the Punjab government and the Governor was a 'matter of serious concern'.

Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and Punjab governor Banwarilal Purohit

Source : Getty

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Punjab Governor for not giving assent to bills passed by Assembly, saying it was like "playing with fire", PTI reported. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, heading a three-judge bench, said the deadlock between the Punjab government and the Governor was a "matter of serious concern". 

"How can you (Governor) say that bill which has been passed cannot be assented to because Assembly session is invalid? You realise the gravity of what you're doing? You're playing with fire," the top court said, according to a report in Live Law.

"Democracy has to work in the hands of the Chief Minister and in the hands of the governor," the court further said.

READ | 'Don't Blame Court After Failing To Perform': SC Pulls Up Delhi Govt On AQI

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the Punjab government accusing the Governor of sitting on seven key Bills. "Our country has been running on established traditions and conventions and they need to be followed," the CJI said.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court called for a "little bit of soul searching" by Governors and Chief Ministers to resolve such issues. The Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure at Governors holding back key Bills until state governments moved the top court for intervention.

Meanwhile, in a similar plea by the Tamil Nadu government over alleged delay by the Governor in giving nod to bills, the Supreme Court issused a notice to the Centre on Friday. The matter will be heard next on November 20.

During the hearing, the TN government told the court that 12 bills passed by Assembly between 2020 and 2023 were pending with the Governor. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, allaged that "a constitutional authority" was consistently acting in an "unconstitutional manner" and "impeding and obstructing" the functioning of the government for "extraneous reasons".