The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Arunachal Pradesh Governor to explain how he could dictate the agenda for the State Assembly which was essentially a legislative function.
While hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the orders passed by the Governor that finally led to imposition of President’s Rule in the State, the Court told the counsel appearing for Governor that since the Governor draws power from the Constitution, the propriety of his decisions had to be tested on constitutional principles and not on “apprehensions” fearing a constitutional crisis.
The observations were made by a Constitution bench headed by Justice JS Khehar in response to the arguments made by senior advocate TR Andhyarujina. Appearing for Governor JP Rajkhowa, Andhyarujina said that the December 9, 2015 decision to advance the Assembly and a further direction issued the same day asking the House to first decide on the resolution to dismiss the Speaker was based on apprehensions that the Speaker will side with the “minority” Government headed by then Chief Minister Nabam Tuki to allow them to remain in power.
Defending his power to advance the session of the Assembly from January 14 to December 16, Andhyarujina also cited the “sensitive border” shared by the State with China followed by the “ chaotic” situation created by then CM Nabam Tuki and his MlAs who “assaulted” the Governor. It was for these reasons, Governor’s counsel argued that it became imminent to seek Speaker’s removal for which the Assembly session had to be convened at the earliest.
The bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B lokur, PC Ghose and NV Ramana said that the Governor may advance Assembly session but the subsequent order asking the House to take up the resolution to remove the Speaker clearly rested within the domain of the “discretion of the House”.
“How can you (Governor) ask them to deal with it as the first agendaIJ... Who is he to say thisIJ By saying so, he has taken away discretion of the House.” Reminding the scope of power available to the Governor under the Constitution, the bench said, “The Governor cannot act on mere apprehension. It is democracy that is paramount. It is the duty of a constitutional body to see that democracy remains in place. The Governor’s duty is to keep the democracy running and not to make a dent on it.”