Prorogation and financial procedure rules yield to constitutional power; substantial compliance upheld for legislative certification.

Prorogation of a Legislative Assembly takes effect on publication in the Official Gazette, and prior notice to members is only ministerial; the later summoning of the House remains valid. An Ordinance regulating financial business may validly be promulgated when the Assembly is not in session, and a provision restricting adjournment to complete such business was upheld as consistent with constitutional requirements. A Speaker's ruling based on an incorrect premise cannot defeat a binding Ordinance, so proceedings continued by the Deputy Speaker were valid. Certification of Money Bills by the Deputy Speaker was treated as directory, with substantial compliance sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Governor's prorogation of the Legislative Assembly took effect on publication in the Gazette and whether the subsequent summoning of the House was valid; (ii) whether the Ordinance regulating financial business was validly promulgated and whether Section 3 of the Ordinance was constitutionally valid; (iii) whether the Speaker's ruling adjourning the House was open to challenge and whether the Deputy Speaker could validly continue the proceedings; (iv) whether the certificates on the Money Bills signed by the Deputy Speaker were effective.

Issue (i): whether the Governor's prorogation of the Legislative Assembly took effect on publication in the Gazette and whether the subsequent summoning of the House was valid

Analysis: Prorogation under the Constitution was held to operate upon public notification in the Official Gazette. The rule requiring the Secretary to notify members was treated as ministerial and not as a condition precedent to effectiveness. The Governor's power to prorogue was not curtailed by the fact that the Assembly had earlier been adjourned, and the later summoning after prorogation was treated as a valid exercise of constitutional power.

Conclusion: The prorogation took effect on Gazette publication and the resummoning of the Assembly was valid.

Issue (ii): whether the Ordinance regulating financial business was validly promulgated and whether Section 3 of the Ordinance was constitutionally valid

Analysis: The Governor was held competent to promulgate an Ordinance when the Assembly was not in session. The power to regulate financial business under Article 209 was treated as broad enough to support an Ordinance on the subject, and the law made under that provision prevailed over inconsistent Assembly rules. Section 3 was read as not overriding constitutional requirements such as quorum, but as restricting adjournment in aid of timely completion of financial business. On that basis, the provision was upheld.

Conclusion: The Ordinance was validly promulgated and Section 3 was constitutionally valid.

Issue (iii): whether the Speaker's ruling adjourning the House was open to challenge and whether the Deputy Speaker could validly continue the proceedings

Analysis: The Speaker's ruling was founded on an incorrect premise as to prorogation and was beyond the scope of the finality attached to points of order, because the ruling purported to nullify a binding Ordinance. The Ordinance prevailed over the procedural rules, and the Speaker could not defeat it by a ruling. The Deputy Speaker's continuation of the proceedings was therefore supported by the valid legal framework then in force.

Conclusion: The Speaker's ruling was not final or valid, and the proceedings conducted by the Deputy Speaker were valid.

Issue (iv): whether the certificates on the Money Bills signed by the Deputy Speaker were effective

Analysis: The requirement that the Speaker certify a Money Bill was treated as directory rather than mandatory. The Constitution contemplated the Deputy Speaker acting as Speaker during the Speaker's absence, and substantial compliance was sufficient where insistence on the Speaker's personal signature could create avoidable legislative deadlock. The validity of the proceedings was also protected from challenge on mere procedural irregularity.

Conclusion: The certificates signed by the Deputy Speaker were effective and the Money Bills were duly certified.

Final Conclusion: The legislative and financial measures complained of were upheld, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional power exercised by the Governor or the presiding officers must be given effect according to its legal source and purpose, and procedural rules cannot override a valid constitutional or statutory command; where a constitutional requirement is directory rather than mandatory, substantial compliance is sufficient.

---