Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab



Date of Order / Judgment: 13th September, 2024

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice A.N. Ray, Justice D.G. Palekar, Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice A. Alagiriswami, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer

Background

In the Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab case, the petitioner, Shamsher Singh, challenged the legality of certain actions taken by the Governor of Punjab. The contention was that these actions were executed without the assistance and advice of the state’s Council of Ministers, which the petitioner argued was required under the Indian Constitution.

Issues
  • 1. Whether the Governor of Punjab acted independently of the Council of Ministers.
  • 2. Whether such independent actions by the Governor are constitutionally valid.
Observation

The Supreme Court observed that according to the Indian Constitution, both the President of India and the Governor of a state are required to act according to the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers. This is mandated by Article 74(1) for the President and Article 163(1) for the Governor. The Court emphasized that while the Governor does have some discretion in specific situations; the general rule is that all executive and legislative actions must be conducted based on the advice and consent of the Council of Ministers.

The Court underscored that if the Governor takes action independently, it must be supported by the agreement of the Council of Ministers to be deemed constitutionally valid.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor/President must act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers in most circumstances, as specified in the Constitution. The Court added that the term ‘satisfaction’, would mean, the satisfaction based upon the aid and advice of Council of Ministers headed by the Chief/Prime Minister. The Court held that any action taken by the Governor/President without such advice or concurrence is not constitutionally valid. In this case, the actions of the Governor that were challenged were deemed invalid as they did not align with the required constitutional procedures involving the Council of Ministers.