The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the Arunachal Pradesh governor’s decision in advancing the Assembly session from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015 and said it will examine whether there is
The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the Arunachal Pradesh governor’s decision in advancing the Assembly session from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015 and said it will examine whether there is any sinister or genuine move behind the governor’s action.
A five-judge Constitution bench comprising Justices J.S. Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose and N.V. Ramana did not accept arguments of rebel Congress MLAs that the governor’s action cannot be questioned as he had absolute discretion in advancing the session. Justice Khehar told senior counsel Rakesh Diwedi, appearing for rebel MLAs that the courts can interfere if there is a perceived sinister motive. Earlier Justice Khehar asked the counsel what prompted the governor to advance the session as it was not a question of floor test of the chief minister but the disqualification of 14 rebel Congress MLAs under the anti-defection law. Counsel justified the governor’s decision saying his discretion cannot be doubted merely on the basis of perceptions. Justice Khehar pointed out that even assuming the governor had discretionary powers, yet, that may not perhaps justify his action of adva-ncing the Session.
The bench also wondered whether the status of Speaker of a House was so vulnerable that a governor should deem it necessary to advance the Session even if one or two MLAs move a resolution for advancing the session date. Justice Khehar asked the counsel, “What has happened in the interregnum What can Speaker do when the resolution is to be taken on January 14 when the House was to meet. What we are pondering is what would change or the difference it would have made if the same proceedings were to be held on January 14. We may have to examine whether it is a genuine or sinister motive.”
The bench asked, “What is supposed to be decided on January 14 is sought to be decided on December 16. What was the need You will have to look for an answer. “You have advanced the Assembly on what principles
The senior counsel said the 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. But the bench was not convinced saying there was no concrete material in support of the arguments. Arguments will continue on February 8.
