1968 (7) TMI 89 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Punjab Ordinance I of 1968.
2. Constitutionality of Punjab Appropriation Acts Nos. 9 and 10 of 1968.
3. Legality of the Governor's prorogation and resummoning of the Legislative Assembly.
4. Validity of the Speaker's ruling and subsequent adjournment.
5. Certification of Money Bills by the Deputy Speaker.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Punjab Ordinance I of 1968:
The Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor of Punjab on March 13, 1968, to address the political crisis and ensure the timely completion of financial business. The High Court held the Ordinance unconstitutional by a majority, but the Supreme Court upheld its validity. The Court emphasized that Article 213(6) allows the Governor to promulgate Ordinances during the recess of the Legislature, and the power under Article 209(7) enables regulation of financial business in the Legislature. The Ordinance was deemed necessary to prevent the adjournment of the House without completing financial business and was thus validly enacted.

2. Constitutionality of Punjab Appropriation Acts Nos. 9 and 10 of 1968:
The High Court unanimously held the Appropriation Acts unconstitutional, primarily due to the invalid certification by the Deputy Speaker. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, stating that the Deputy Speaker, acting as Speaker under Article 180(2), could validly certify Money Bills. The Court concluded that the provisions of Article 199(4) are directory, not mandatory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. The Appropriation Acts were thus upheld as constitutional.

3. Legality of the Governor's Prorogation and Resummoning of the Legislative Assembly:
The Governor prorogued the Assembly on March 11, 1968, and resummoned it on March 14, 1968, following the issuance of the Ordinance. The High Court unanimously held the prorogation and resummoning regular and legal. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the Governor acted within his constitutional powers under Article 174(2)(a) to prorogue the Assembly and under Article 174(3) to summon it. The prorogation became effective upon public notification on March 11, 1968, and was necessary to restore the legislative machinery.

4. Validity of the Speaker's Ruling and Subsequent Adjournment:
The Speaker's ruling on March 18, 1968, declared the prorogation and resummoning of the Assembly invalid and adjourned the House for two months. The Supreme Court found the Speaker's ruling based on a wrong assumption, as the prorogation was validly effected on March 11, 1968. The Speaker's adjournment was null and void because it contravened Section 3 of the Ordinance, which required the House's majority consent for adjournment. The Deputy Speaker's subsequent ruling, which declared the Speaker's adjournment null and void, was upheld as correct and binding.

5. Certification of Money Bills by the Deputy Speaker:
The certification of Money Bills by the Deputy Speaker was challenged as invalid under Article 199(4), which mandates the Speaker's certification. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Speaker, acting as Speaker under Article 180(2), could validly certify Money Bills. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Article 199(4) are directory, and substantial compliance was sufficient. The certification by the Deputy Speaker was thus upheld as valid, and the Appropriation Acts were deemed constitutional.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions with costs. The Court upheld the validity of Punjab Ordinance I of 1968, the constitutionality of Punjab Appropriation Acts Nos. 9 and 10 of 1968, the legality of the Governor's prorogation and resummoning of the Legislative Assembly, and the certification of Money Bills by the Deputy Speaker.