How Arunachal came to such a pass

On the day the nation was celebrating the 67th Republic Day, shocking news came of imposition of the President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh. It came on the eve of the Constitution Bench going into validity of Speaker Nabam Rebia’s impeachment by rebel Congress MLAs and BJP legislators on December 16.

Besides, non-convening of Assembly within six months of its last sitting is also cited as a failure of the constitutional machinery as per the Article 174(1) of the Constitution. Congress moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday, which referred its plea to a Constitution Bench which was already seized of the petition by the Speaker.

The Supreme Court ordered the Governor to immediately furnish the report of the Centre on "constitutional breakdown in the State”. It also gave the Centre time till January 29 to respond on the President's rule and posted the matter to February 1. It may be recalled that the Nabam Tuki government of Congress was rocked by a rebellion in the CLP.

The Speaker, who was the first cousin of the CM, on December 15 disqualified 14 Congress rebel MLAs. The rebels along with 7 other party MLAs, issued a notice for removal of the Speaker. With Speaker refusing to advance the Assembly session from the scheduled date of January 14, they roped in BJP MLAs and petitioned Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa.

The latter not only summoned the Assembly on December 16 and 17, but sent a message to take up only the impeachment of the Speaker. Meanwhile, the Speaker locked up the Assembly. The 21 rebel Cong MLAs, 11 BJP MLAs and two Independents met on December 16 at a session – at a community hall – chaired by Deputy Speaker TN Thongdok.

The majority MLAs, including the Deputy Speaker, in the House of 60, impeached the Speaker. The next day they elected Kaiko Pul as the Leader of the House. The State government immediately moved the High Court. One of the Judge said the impeachment of Speaker Nabam Rebia was in “violation of Article 174 and 175 of the Constitution,” as the House was convened sans the consent of Council of Ministers.

The Article 174 deals with Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolution: 1 The Governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the state to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session; 2. The Governor may from time to time – a. prorogue the House or either House; b. dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

The Constitution stipulates under the Article 175 the right of Governor to address and send messages to the Legislative House or Houses: 1. The Governor may address the Legislative Assembly or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, either House of the Legislature of the State, or both Houses assembled together, and may for that purpose require the attendance of members; 2.

The Governor may send messages to the House or Houses of the Legislature of the State, whether with respect of a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise, and a House to which any message is so sent shall with all convenient despatch consider any matter required by the message to be taken into consideration.

Another Judge of the High Court later the petition raises an issue as to whether the Governor has a discretion to advance the assembly session. “In view of Article 163(2), the Governor, and not the court, is the sole judge of that question,” he ruled. Article 163(2) reads as follows: “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.”

He also said that the role of a Governor cannot be examined by the court in view of Article 212 of the Constitution. The Article states that no proceedings in Legislature or no officer or member of the House is subject to court jurisdiction. “The Governor is under a duty to exercise his power under Article 174 only in his discretion,” the judge noted. It was then that the ‘impeached’ Speaker rushed to the SC.

It may be recalled that in Union of India vs Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary and others case, a Constitution Bench in 1979 held that the Governor has to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It also said the Governor’s messages to the House only pertain to a Bill not any resolution, under the Article 175 (2).

It is ironical that the Congress which had been notorious for pulling down non-Congress government is now accusing the BJP of destabilising non-BJP governments. It let the situation aggravate, despite knowing that there was a major crisis brewing in the CLP. After disqualification of the 14 members by the Speaker, it could have intervened and averted the crisis. Later, when it became clear that BJP lent support to the rebels, making the government a minority, it looked the other way.

Blaming the BJP for seizing the opportunity to hit at the government is to no avail. It could have set the house in order by asking Nabum Taki to face the CLP vote or wait for the final floor test in the Assembly. Typically this is what happens when the President’s Rule is imposed in a State. All government functions will be vested in the Governor, subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the President.

The Assembly and will be in ‘suspended animation.’ Its powers will be vested in Parliament which has to ratify the President’s Rule within two months of its proclamation which is valid for up to six months. Parliament can extend it. It is unfortunate that the most strategic north-eastern tiny State of the country, which has not been recognised by China, should witness such murky happenings. Insurgency is already rife in the State, and it is unbecoming of either BJP or Congress to let political instability further vitiate the affairs of the State.