The Supreme Court (SC) created a history of sorts on Wednesday by reviving the Nabam Tuki-led Congress Government in Arunachal Pradesh in a major setback to the Centre. Tuki’s Government was dismissed on January 26 when the Centre imposed President’s Rule in the State.
The judgment by a five-judge Constitution Bench created an odd situation as the Centre revoked President’s Rule in February to pave the way for a rebel Congress MlA Kalikho Pul to become Chief Minister in the State. Putting up a brave front in the face of defeat, Pul told the media, “There is no threat to our Government, we will remain. That (majority) will be decided on the floor of the Assembly. Government runs only with the numbers.”
Pul is likely to file a review petition in the SC after consulting legal experts. Government sources too indicated that the Centre may seek a clarification as the judgment does not deal with the validity of President’s Rule and its subsequent withdrawal.
The Bench of Justices JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B lokur, PC Ghose and NV Ramana set the clock back to December 15, 2015, a crucial date when the Speaker of Arunachal Assembly last convened the House. The court damned Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s order issued on December 9, 2015 directing the Speaker to prepone the session of the House from the scheduled January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015. The Governor’s order advised the members of the House to decide first on a resolution to remove the Speaker and allow the Deputy Speaker to preside the House.
Setting aside the Governor’s order as “unconstitutional”, the court restored status quo in the State as on December 15, 2015. It also warned the Governor not to “embroil” himself in any “political thicket”.
The case had a history as 21 Congress MlAs had turned rebel against the Tuki Government calling him as corrupt and sided with 11 BJP MlAs who supported their demand to oust him from power. The Speaker had in the December 15 session disqualified 14 rebel MlAs.
The SC was of the unanimous view that Governor functions with aid and advice of Council of Ministers unless the Constitution specifically provides him to act in his discretion. In the present case, the court held that Rajkhowa exceeded his Constitutional limits by calling for an early session of the House without aid and advice of the State Cabinet. By asking for Speaker’s removal to be decided first, he further crossed the line as this matter is to be determined by the legislators, the judges held.
“The Governor just cannot act as the Ombudsman of the State legislature… He has no role whatsoever in the removal of the Speaker under Article 179. The message of the Governor dated December 9, 2015 was therefore beyond the Constitutional authority vested with the Governor,” said the judgment written jointly by Justices Khehar, Ghose and Ramana. Pursuant to the Governor’s order, all decisions and proceedings initiated by Arunachal Pradesh Assembly were set aside by the court. There was even a rider on the Speaker as the court held that in the event the House is to take up the disqualification petition of rebel Congress MlAs, the Speaker must refrain from deciding it as he himself faced a petition for removal already moved by 13 Opposition MlAs.
Moreover, the court viewed the rebellion to be an intra-party affair as neither was a no-confidence motion moved against Tuki nor was he facing a floor test. The Governor, it seemed, acted on a letter written by the rebel MlAs complaining against Tuki’s high-handedness. The Congress had already disqualified two MlAs and issued show-cause notices to remaining 19. In this scenario, the SC rebuked the Governor for supporting an “invalid breakaway group” and adopting a constitutional recourse of recommending President’s Rule in the State, that he could take only in case of a constitutional crisis.
The court further quashed all decisions taken by the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly subsequent to Governor’s order, giving clear indication that the new Government in the State had no legal sanctity.
likening the events in the State to a “political circus”, Justice lokur, one of the judges who penned a separate judgment, said what was witnessed in the State was “lack of cordiality” between constitutional functionaries, that resulted in “thrashing” of the Constitutional mechanism that requires interpersonal relationship and “spanking” to governance in the State. The judge went on to set aside the parallel proceedings conducted by the Deputy Speaker in a community hall where decision was taken to quash the disqualification of 14 rebel MlAs and remove the Speaker for siding with the Chief Minister.