New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped the Arunachal Pradesh Governor J.P. Rajkhowa’s decision to advance the assembly session on his own from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015.
Though the court had restored Nabi Tuki’s government, highly placed sources said that a clarification is to be sought on Thursday as to whether Mr. Tuki will have to take a floor test to prove his majority in the assembly.
Writing the main judgment Justice Khehar, heading the five-judge Constitution bench held that the Governor does not have power to advance 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 is he should have ordered a ‘floor test’ which he did not do.
During the course of arguments in the court the Governor had justified his decision to advance the session saying he had exercised his legitimate discretion.
He said the Chief Minister claimed majority in the House, when 21 Congress MLAs had written to the Governor saying that the CM had lost their confidence. What should he do when he is faced with a situation of a resolution to remove the Speaker.
Can the Governor be faulted for exercising the discretion to pre-pone the assembly session and asking that the resolution to be taken as the first item in the agenda, he asked.
Governor had his own information that there would be horse-trading and other such activities which prompted him to advance the session to prevent any such situation.
On behalf of Mr. Tuki and others it was submitted that the conspiracy to topple the Tuki government started 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 of the other and his intention was clear that he wanted to remove the CM, when he advanced the session without any recommendation from the Cabinet. The court in its 331-page judgment strongly indicted the Governor J.P. Rajkhowa’s decision to advance the session and held that his action was illegal and unconstitutional.
