Gov can’t be in political thicket: SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped Arunachal Pradesh Governor J. P. Rajkhowa for his decision to advance the Assembly session on his own from January 14, 2016, to December 16, 2015, saying they were “violative” of the Constitution.
The bench held that it is not within the realm of the governor’s powers to embroil himself in any "political thicket".
The Supreme Court unseated Kalikho Pul as chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh and ordered “status quo ante as on December 15, 2015”, thus restoring the Congress’ Nabi Tuki government.
Writing the main judgment, Justice Khehar, heading the five- judge Constitution bench, held
Continued from Page 1 that the governor does not have power to pre- pone the Assembly session without the aid and advice of chief minister and his Council of Ministers. If the Governor had any doubt about the majority of Nabi Tuki government, the best course would have been to order a “floor test”, which he did not do. The court in its 331page judgment strongly indicted Mr Rajkhowa and held the Governor’s action as “illegal and unconstitutional”. The Bench, quashing the Gauhati high court order that upheld the discretionary powers of the Governor Rajkhowa to summon or advance a sitting of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.
The Bench held that it is not within the realm of the Governor’s powers to embroil himself in any “political thicket”. Defining the role of the Governor, it said the Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension within individual political parties. The activities within a political party, confirming turbulence, or unrest within its ranks, are beyond the concern of the Governor. The Governor must keep clear of any political horse- trading, and even unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness. Who should or should not be a leader of a political party, is a political question, to be dealt with and resolved privately by the political party itself. During the course of arguments in the court the Governor had, though his counsels, justified his decision to pre- pone the session saying he had exercised his legitimate discretion. He submitted that the chief minister claimed majority in the House, when 21 Congress MLAs had written to him saying that the CM had lost their confidence. What, he asked the court, should he have done when faced with a resolution to remove the Speaker.
Can the Governor be faulted for exercising discretion to pre- pone the Assembly session and asking that the resolution be taken as the first item on the agenda, he asked. The Governor claimed that he had information that there would be horse- trading and that prompted him to advance the session.
The judgment said that the Governor cannot direct the Speaker as to how the proceedings should be conducted and fix the agenda for the House.
On behalf of Mr Tuki and others it was submitted that the conspiracy to topple the Tuki government began when the Governor assumed charge on June 1, 2015. The Governor, without any reason, wrote a series of letters to the CM on one pretext or the other, making his intention clear that he wanted to remove the CM when he pre- poned the Assembly without any recommendation from the Cabinet. The Bench was of the view that the provisions of the Constitution do not enjoin upon the Governor the authority to resolve disputes within a political party, or between rival political parties. The Governor, it said, cannot make such issues a matter of his concern.
Justices Khehar, Misra and Lokur gave three different but concurring verdicts. Justices P. C. Ghose and N. V. Ramana are the other judges in the bench.
In a separate judgment concurring with others in the five- judge bench, Justice Madan B. Lokur also set aside the order of the Assembly deputy speaker who had quashed the Speaker’s decision to disqualify 14 rebel Congress MLAs on December 15 last year.