Justifying its decision to impose President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, the Centre on Friday informed the Supreme Court that such was the “Constitutional breakdown” in the State that even the Governor and his family faced a grave risk to their lives.
The Centre also made it known that its decision was carefully thought out, based on eight special reports sent by Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa since October last year citing “complete breakdown of law and order in the State”.
Moreover, with the SC still to decide whether the action of the dissident MlAs and Opposition leaders to meet outside the Assembly was lawful, the Centre argued that if it is held to be invalid, then the Assembly would have failed to convene for a period of six months, prescribed as a condition under Article 174 to suggest Constitutional breakdown. And in the event it is held to be valid, the current Government in the State will be seen as a minority. “In either case, the State is heading for a constitutional crisis,” the Centre said.
In its affidavit, filed ahead of Monday’s hearing on the Governor’s report recommending President’s Rule by a Constitution Bench, the Centre presented the details of the Governor’s reports.
The first set of reports was received by the Centre on October 17 followed by subsequent reports issued by the Governor on November 19, December 15, December 16, December 17, January 14, January 15, and January 18, all pointing out the development of a serious constitutional crisis and a “breakdown of governance” with the Governor being “publicly insulted, humiliated and even gheraoed by supporters of the present Government” and the State turning a blind eye to it all.
The affidavit filed by SK Bhalla, Director (Centre-State-1) with Ministry of Home Affairs said, “Gherao at the instance of the political executive, of the Governor, who is the nominee of the President of India, amounts to Constitutional breakdown in the State.”
“Such political instability assumed sensitive proportions,” said the Centre, considering the “restive boundary” the State shared with China and “attempts made by China to claim large parts of its territory”.
Referring to the decision of the Speaker Nabam Rebia together with the political executive to prevent the legislative Assembly from taking place and “locking” of Assembly premises to keep out the 21 dissident Congress
MlAs from entering the House along with 13 Opposition MlAs, the Centre said, “The fact that the Speaker could lock down by an order the very premises of the Assembly and not allow the legislators to even visit the Assembly is a grave act and subversive in the democratic set up of the Constitution.”
Chief Minister Nabam Tuki’s dispensation, reduced to a minority, acted in the most undemocratic manner by locking the Assembly premises and forcing 34 MlAs to convene the House in separate premises, it said.
The Centre referred to a memorandum it received that was forwarded by Governor Rajkhowa to the President which contained signatures of 34 MlAs in the State requesting President’s Rule.
“The said memorandum makes it clear that the incumbent Chief Minister has lost majority in the Assembly and there was serious political instability in the State,” said the Centre.
These MlAs were stopped from meeting the Governor by agitators led by the State Home Minister. Indicating “source reports”, the Centre said that NSCN(K), a banned organized under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967, was threatening dissident MlAs.
The affidavit said: “Involving NSCN(K) in matters of Government formation /majority is extremely dangerous” and there was need to ensure that the democratic principle of “majority rules” can be tested on the floor of the House without “fear or favour”.
Interestingly, the Government’s affidavit is silent on the “sacrifice” of Mithun, which is a bovine species, outside the Raj Bhavan, as alleged in the Governor’s report. But the Centre backed the claim that the Governor and his family apprehended danger to their lives. “A constitutional authority who enjoys immunity under Constitution Article 361 should not be demeaned for ulterior purposes.”