Sifting legality from the vast debris of politics
The Supreme Court's annoyance over the imposition of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh following Governor JP Rajkhowa's recommendation to the Centre stems from the fact that the step was taken even as political developments in the State leading to the present situation were under the court's consideration for a decision. This explains why the apex court demanded to be told the cause of ‘hurry' and directed the Governor's counsel to furnish “within 15 minutes” the Governor's report. Thereafter, it issued notice to the Centre and posted the matter for Monday.
There are conflicting opinions on the issue, depending on which side of the party one is seeking a response from. It must be remembered that President Pranab Mukherjee gave his consent to the proclamation only after he was satisfied with the Centre's explanation. President Mukherjee has decades of experience in politics and also of the machinations that go into making and breaking Governments. He would not have agreed to President's Rule had he been unconvinced even the slightest bit. Still, the final call now rests with the Supreme Court, with the Centre having to satisfy the court on the argument that there had been a constitutional breakdown which necessitated Central rule.
But, away from the legality of imposing President's Rule by invoking Article 356 of the Constitution, which the apex court is seized of, the facts of the case clearly show the problem was political and internal to the Congress to begin with, and then it spun out of control and into the legal domain. Some seven weeks ago, a group of rebel Congress MlAs demanded impeachment of the Speaker because the members alleged he was plotting to disqualify them. They met the Governor who agreed to their demand and called an emergency Assembly session to discuss the issue. The Congress Government took offence because the Speaker had not been consulted and refused to go by the Governor's directive.
Meanwhile, the rebel legislators (20 out of a total of 42 Congress MlAs) conducted the ‘special session' in a community hall as the Government blocked them from having it in the Assembly building. The Deputy Speaker, who was on the rebels' side, presided over the ‘House' which passed the impeachment motion. Also, Chief Minister Nabam Tuki was ‘voted out of power'. The Speaker thereafter disqualified 14 of the rebel Congress legislators. He also moved the High Court.
The court stayed the disqualification and turned down the Speaker's plea to be heard in another court. The Speaker then went to the Supreme Court. The rebellion, of course, has a longer history. Problems for Mr Tuki began in December 2014 when he sacked a veteran Minister to quell brewing rebellion against his leadership. This triggered a fresh crisis with more MlAs joining the dissident rank and leading to even more Ministers being dropped. Eventually, it became unclear if the Tuki Government enjoyed a majority. While these events continued to unfold, they led to a fluid situation and collapse of visible governance, resulting in President's Rule. And so, while there are allegations that the Centre and the Governor connived to destabilise the Congress Government, nobody can deny that the Congress leadership mishandled the inner revolt.