Even as Arunachal Pradesh reels under a political crisis, the Supreme Court last week decided not to reconsider its decision to re-install the Nabam Tuki Government in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.
The apex court dismissed a review petition filed by former Arunachal Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia who objected to the ruling of July 13, 2016 that set aside the decision of the Speaker to disqualify 14 Congress rebel MlAs at a time when a resolution to remove the Speaker was pending with the House. The Court had restored status quo as prevailing on December 15, 2015, the same date on which the Speaker had disqualified 14 Congress rebel MlAs.
Dealing with the review petition on Thursday, the five judge Constitution Bench comprising Justices JS Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B lokur, PC Ghose and NV Ramana found no ground to interfere with its earlier order and affirmed the same by dismissing the review.
What aggrieved the former Speaker was the Court's finding that the Speaker, who is a Constitutional authority, is vested with power by the members of a legislative Assembly on the premise that such a person enjoys the confidence of the House.
The bench concurred with the view that it was not appropriate for Rebia to have decided on the fate of the 14 MlAs when his own continuation in the House was under challenge. Justices Khehar, Ghosh and Ramana speaking through a common order had said, “The action of the Speaker in continuing, with one or more disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, whilst a notice of resolution for his own removal, from the office of Speaker is pending, would “appear” to be unfair. The judgment also explored the possibility of disqualification petition being decided on political considerations, the possibility of which will become real if the motion of Speaker's removal is not taken first.
Justice Misra too was of the view that “it is necessary that the Speaker as a tribunal has to have complete detachment and perceivable impartiality”. In his separate order of July 13, Justice Misra said, “When there is an expression of intention to move the resolution to remove him (Speaker), it is requisite that he should stand the test and then proceed. That is the intendment of Article 179(c) and the said interpretation serves the litmus test of sustained democracy founded on Rule of law.”
Finding no merit, the five-judge bench dismissed the review appeal, stating, “Having carefully perused the petition for review, the judgment impugned and the papers annexed in support thereof, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting reconsideration of the aforementioned judgment.”