Ashok Bhan
The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court today delivered yet another Judgement declaring the actions of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh as illegal.The verdict is seen by the citizens and the legal fraternity as triumph of Constitutional democracy and the majesty of the independent Judiciary in India.
Top court’s ruling is the The first time when it has reinstated a Government even after a new Government was formed in its place. It’s also a boost for the Congress, which has accused the BJP of trying to bring down democratically-elected Governments.
The ruling is seen by many as a snub for those who in the colour of the Constitutional office covertly and overtly misuse the powers.
It started on December 9, 2015 when a group of rebel Congress met Governor JP Rajkhowa seeking to impeach Speaker Nabam Rebia. Their complaint was that he was trying to get them disqualified from the Assembly. The Governor agreed and called for an emergency session on December 16 to take up the impeachment motion. Congress protested the Governor’s action, but the Centre went ahead and imposed President’s Rule in the state invoking Article 356. In the special session attended by 20 rebel Congress MLAs, 11 BJP MLAs and 2 Independents at a community hall, the impeachment motion was passed and Pul was ‘elected’ as the Leader of the House. The same day, the Speaker disqualified 14 Congress members.
Justice Dipak Misra, who delivered a separate but concurring judgment on the Arunachal Pradesh crisis, has dealt in detail with the precarious situation in which an Assembly Speaker can land into, saying if there is a resolution to remove him, he should stand the test and then proceed.
Justice Misra, while dealing with Article 179(C) of the Constitution which deals with the issue of removal of Speaker, said the impartiality of the Speaker should also appear to be perceptible.The deliberation assumes importance in view of the fact that Arunachal Speaker Nabam Rebia, a Congressman, faced opposition from rebels MLAs of his own party who had joined hands with BJP MLAs for removing him.
“When there is an expression of intention to move the resolution to remove him, 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…
“It would be an anathema to the concept of constitutional adjudication, if the Speaker is allowed to initiate proceeding under the Tenth Schedule (disqualification on ground of defection) of the Constitution after intention to remove him from his office is moved,” Justice Dipak Misra said while interpreting Article 179(c) of Constitution in the context of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
Article 179(c) of Constitution says that a member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly.
The Gauhati High Court stayed the disqualification of the Congress MLAs and the Speaker’s plea was turned down.The Supreme Court referred the entire batch of petitions filed by the Speaker to a constitution bench, which is examining the discretionary powers of the Governor.
A fresh petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the imposition of President”s Rule in the state.The Centre justified the imposition of President’s Rule in the state citing complete breakdown of law and order. It also said the Congress Government was in a minority there.Governor Rajkhowa said the President’s rule in the state was temporary and that a new elected Government would soon be formed in its place–
The Supreme Court, examining the powers of Governors, took strong note of a submission that all decisions of the Governor are not open to judicial review and said it cannot be a mute spectator when democratic processes are “slaughtered”.The top court rejected the pleas of the rebel Congress MLAs against the Speaker.
On 19th Feb.2016 The President’s Rule was lifted in the state .Dissident leader Kalikho Pul was sworn in as the ninth Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh with the support of 18 rebel Congress MLAs, and two Independents and 11 BJP MLAs who gave outside support.Pul’s swearing-in came a day after the Supreme Court vacated its interim order to maintain status quo in the Arunachal Pradesh assembly, paving the way for Government formation.
On February 23, 2016–The Supreme Court observed that it was empowered to “set the clock back” if there were constitutional violations in the manner in which the Arunachal Pradesh Governor issued orders that have eventually led to formation of a new Government in the state.–Pul won the vote of confidence without any opposition on the first day of the state assembly session, with 17 Congress MLAs including former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki remaining absent in the House.30 rebel Congress MLAs who sided with CM Pul merged with People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA), leaving no scope for the Congress to take any legal action against them.The merger took place with the CM announcing it at Naharlagun. He said they were “compelled” to take the decision as Congress had “shut all its doors” despite all of them asserting that they continued to belong to it.
On the historic day of July 13, 2016 The Supreme Court turned the clock back and restored the Congress Government in the state. The court said the Governor’s actions were ‘illegal.’
(The author is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel