Governor can't delay Assembly however inappropriate CM comments are: Supreme Court; Punjab Budget Session to be held on March 3

The Supreme Court was informed on Tuesday that Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit has summoned the Budget Session of the State Legislative Assembly for March 3, at 10 AM.A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing a plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab after the State's Governor refused to summon the Budget Session of the State legislature, which was slated to begin on March 3.Justifying his refusal to start the Budget Session, the Governor cited the need to get legal advice over a "derogatory letter" addressed to him by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, who later tweeted the letter.During the hearing, the CJI called for more civil discourse between the functionaries and said,"In our communications between constitutional authorities, there has to be constitutional discourse...there cannot be statements like who are you or how Centre selects you. Again, however inappropriate the tweet of the CM may be, the Assembly Session cannot be delayed."The Court also made it clear that there was no occasion for the Governor to seek legal advice on whether to convene the Budget Session, as he was bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.However, the Court did criticise the Chief Minister for the intemperate language used in his letter."Governor has the right to seek information from the CM on the decisions taken and once such information is sought, the CM is duty to bound to furnish it. The tone and tenor of the letter by the CM and the tweet by the CM leaves much to be desired."The matter was mentioned this morning before CJI Chandrachud, who agreed to hear it at 3:50 PM.When the matter was taken up in the afternoon, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Punjab government urged the Court to go through the letters exchange between the Chief Minister and the Governor.Appearing for the Governor, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to an order of the Governor saying that he has summoned the Budget Session at 10 AM on Friday."Possibly the plea will not survive. Governor never refused and he said he is taking legal advise. Please take the order passed by the Governor today," Mehta said.Singhvi conceded that the issue was now infructuous, but asked the Court to look into the matter. He said,"Every time I come to court, he gives a letter saying ok we are doing it now. This is because he does not want nation to know......Governor says some statement was made by the CM outside the house...this was extraordinary. Cabinet says convene. Reply of the Governor is that you Mr CM said something to me about 3 crore Punjabis...is this not harassment? Is this not unjust? The Governor is hijacking the Constitution. Is this the way he upholds the constitutional role assigned?"Referring to the letter sent by the CM to the Governor, SG Mehta then told the Court,"Please see the level of discourse we have stooped to and this is the official language addressed to the Governor by the Chief Minister. Please see it."CJI Chandrachud then said,"When Governor asks you (CM) to furnish information on legislation etc, you are bound to answer to the Governor like on what basis teachers were sent for training. Similarly when Cabinet takes decision to convene Budget Session, Governor cannot say I will seek legal advice.""You cannot be intemperate while answering the Governor...and you (Governor) also cannot hold up the session," Justice Narasimha added.In its order, the Court reiterated that the Governor is the Constitutional Head of State who acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It went on to state,"In view of the clear constitutional position, the authority entrusted to the Governor is to be exercised in aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. This is not an area where the Governor exercises his constitutional discretion. He was not summoning the House after general election, but a House of a duly elected government for the Budget Session."On a parting note, the Court said,"While this Court is cognizant of free speech and expression, it is to emphasize that constitutional discourse has to be conducted with a sense of decorum and mature statesmanship, particularly in the context of constitutional dialogue as between functionaries.Political differences in a democratic polity are acceptable, and have to be worked out with a sense of propriety and maturity without having to race to the bottom. Unless these features are adhered to, constitutional principles will be put to jeopardy."As per reports, Mann had sent the letter in question shortly after he tweeted on February 14 that he is not accountable to the Governor and that he is only accountable to the 3 crore Punjabis who had elected him. The said letter also included a request to summon the Budget Session of the Legislative Assembly. In his response, the Governor reportedly said to Mann,“Since your tweet and letter both are not only patently unconstitutional but extremely derogatory also, therefore I am compelled to take legal advise on this issue. Only after getting legal advice I will take a decision on your request."Mann's tweet and letter was in reply to the Governor questioning the Chief Minister on the selection of school principals for a training trip to Singapore.The Governor is stated to have written that he had received complaints of "malpractices and illegalities", as per a report by HT. The same letter also raised questions on several other decisions taken by the AAP government in Punjab, including those on the posting of a police commissioner and the non-disbursal of scholarships to Scheduled Caste (SC) students.Governor Purohit had reportedly asked Mann to reply to this letter in a fortnight, failing which he would be compelled to take legal advice for further action.The written reply sent by Chief Minister Mann had questioned the basis on which the Governor had held his post.“You have asked me on what basis the principals selected for training in Singapore. The People of Punjab want to ask, on what basis are the governors in different states selected by the central government in the absence of any specific qualification in the Indian Constitution?” he reportedly wrote.Supreme Court of IndiaPunjab GovernmentPunjab AssemblyPunjab Governor Litigation NewsAt least one-third of Judges in High Courts should be from district judiciary: Supreme Court expresses prima facie viewThe Supreme Court today requested Chief Justices to keep the said ratio in mind while making recommendations to the Supreme Court Collegium for the appointment and transfer of High Court judges.JudgesAbhimanyu HazarikaPublished on : 28 Feb, 2023, 5:41 pmThe Supreme Court on Tuesday opined that the norm of having one-third of High Court judges from the district judiciary (service quota) with remaining being sourced from practicing lawyers (the Bar), should be maintained and followed. [All India Judges Association vs Union of India and ors]A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol recorded this prima facie view in its order and further sought the responses of all High Courts and State governments in the matter.The present norm is to have Bar appointees (practicing advocates) ideally constituting two-thirds of High Court benches, with those elevated from the State judicial services forming the rest.The Supreme Court today requested Chief Justices to keep the said ratio in mind while making recommendations to the Supreme Court Collegium for the appointment and transfer of High Court judges."Before passing orders in the matter, it will be appropriate to hear all the State governments and High Courts. Issue notice to all the Registrar-Generals of HCs and Chief Secretaries of States, returnable on April 18. We are prima facie of the view that the bar-service ratio needs to be maintained. We would request the Chief Justices of the High Courts to keep the same in mind while making recommendations."The top Court was hearing an application to have 50 per cent of High Court judges to be appointed from the service quota, that is, from the judicial services or the district judiciary. Earlier this month, the Court had sought the response of the Union Law Ministry and the Delhi High Court in the matter.The intervention application was filed by the Judicial Service Association of Delhi (JSAD) in a petition concerning the service conditions of those on the bench in the High Courts as well as the district judiciary.The application stated that while the Constitution does not speak of any ratio/quota of High Court appointees being from the judicial service or the bar, service judges are mentioned first in Article 217(2) (appointment and conditions of the office of High Court Judge) of the Constitution.This, the applicants contended, shows that the first choice for elevation should be from the district judiciary.It was further argued that if more judges are appointed from the district judiciary, it will lead to better disposal of cases as well as better judgments.Given that lowers courts are subordinate to High Courts, service judges are tested and supervised over time, it was added. Further, information on writing skills and other credentials of such candidates are readily available, it was pointed out.The application was filed by JSAD president Rajesh Malik, and drawn by instructing counsel Sachin Jain.Supreme Court of IndiaJudicial OfficersAppointment of JudgesHigh Court judge Litigation NewsMadhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to Raja Pateria in case for alleged 'filthy' remarks against PM Narendra ModiPateria was arrested in December 2022 for allegedly making a speech during a Congress meeting using "filthy and intimidating language" against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Madhya Pradesh HC, PM Narendra Nodi and Raja PateriaSatyendra WankhadePublished on : 28 Feb, 2023, 5:07 pmThe Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday granted bail to Congress leader and former State Minister Raja Pateria, who had been arrested for making controversial remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. [Raja Pateria v. The State of Madhya Pradesh]Justice Sanjay Dwivedi ordered the release of Pateria on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with one solvent surety of the like amount.Pateria was arrested in December for allegedly making a speech during a Congress meeting using "filthy and intimidating language" against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.His first bail plea was rejected by the High Court on January 10, with the Court noting that his release on bail may give a wrong message to society.At the time, the Court had also observed that public leaders are not expected to use foul language disparaging the image of leaders in high places like the President or the Prime Minister. However, the Court had added that Pateria was at liberty to resuscitate the prayer of bail by filing a fresh application after thirty days.Accordingly, Pateria moved a fresh plea for bail, which has now been allowed by the High Court.During the hearing, counsel for Pateria informed the Court that the chargesheet was already filed and that his bail application should be considered since he had been in jail since December last year.On the other hand, the State opposed the application by contending that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits. Therefore, a second bail application, without any change in circumstance, cannot be considered, the State argued.The Court, however, proceeded to grant bail in view of the earlier liberty granted to Pateria to revive the application after thirty days.It clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the case against Pateria while granting bail..Read the Latest Agriculture News in Marathi & Watch Agriculture videos on Agrowon. Get the Latest Farming Updates on Market Intelligence, Market updates, Bazar Bhav, Animal Care, Weather Updates and Farmer Success Stories in Marathi.