Congress Leaders Assaulted Me, Arunachal Governor Tells SC

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Anil R. Dave and Justice Adarsh K Goel today dismissed the special leave petition (SLP) challenging a Gauhati High Court judgment upholding the decision of Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in accepting the resignation letters of two MLAs – Wanglam Sawin (Khonsa East constituency in Tirap District) and Gabriel D Wangsu (representing Kanubari constituency). It was not justified to wait till January 14 this year, so he advanced the session to December 16. As the senior counsel said that “primacy is with the elected government”, the court asked if there was any discretion with the governor.

As these two MLAs were “vocal” against the Chief Minister, the letters were sent to the Speaker, who happens to be the cousin of the chief minister, and they were accepted, he said, adding that this was part of the ongoing political battle in the crisis-hit State.

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that there was nothing wrong if a no-confidence motion was passed against the Congress-led Nabam Tuki government in Arunachal Pradesh assembly while the Deputy Speaker was in charge of the House proceedings after removal of the Speaker.

The Raj Bhawan statement clarified that the Governor had never sought a report from the state law department on whether Deputy Speaker T N Thongdok can perform the duties of a Speaker when President’s rule is in place in the state.

Andhyarujina cited a meeting of Congress MLAs called at the behest of Tuki on September 16 at Itanagar and alleged that rebel MLAs were forced to sign on blank papers, which later became resignation letters.

Senior advocate TR Andhyarujina, appearing for the Governor, said when Chief Minister Nabam Tuki came to meet the Governor, some Congress leaders also abused Rajkhowa.

“It is a constitutional imperative, obligation and duty of the governor to see that the constitutional powers under Schedule Ten is exercised in a right manner”, Andhyarijuna told the court.

The lawyer argued that there was “a chaotic situation in the state and it is a sensitive border state…It was necessary for the Governor to step in”. The five-judge constitution bench reiterated its objection, saying the Governor may advance the Assembly session, but he can not take away “discretion of the House” to “discuss, debate and decide” any issue. Article 163(2) which protects Governor’s discretion is a unique provision in the original Constitution, he said.

Dwivedi contended that if the governor is satisfied that the chief minister has lost the majority support in the assembly he could ask the latter to convene the assembly session to prove his majority.