Constitutional Law

Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

AIR 2016 SC 3209; (2016) 8 SCC 1

Facts

A political crisis developed within the ruling Congress party in Arunachal Pradesh.
Several legislators became dissatisfied with the Chief Minister and Speaker.
A notice seeking removal of the Speaker was submitted.
The Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers:
advanced the Assembly session from January 2016 to December 2015;
fixed the legislative agenda;
directed that the Speaker’s removal be taken up first; and
instructed that the composition of the House should not be altered before the session.
Meanwhile, the Speaker initiated disqualification proceedings against dissident legislators.
Proceedings were conducted in an alternative venue under the Deputy Speaker, and a resolution removing the Speaker was claimed to have been passed.
These actions produced competing governments and eventually President’s Rule.
The matter reached a five-judge Constitution Bench.

Whether the Governor could summon or advance the Assembly session without ministerial advice.
Whether the Governor could determine the Assembly’s legislative agenda.
Whether Article 163 gave the Governor general discretion.
Whether a Speaker may decide defection petitions while a valid notice seeking his removal is pending.
Whether the resulting legislative proceedings were valid.

The Governor ordinarily acts upon the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Article 163 does not create a general reservoir of personal discretion.
Discretion must arise from an express or necessary constitutional provision.
Powers under Articles 174 and 175 concerning legislative sessions and messages cannot ordinarily be used to interfere with internal legislative functioning.
The Governor is not an ombudsman supervising political disputes within the legislature.
Constitutional neutrality requires the Governor to avoid assisting one political faction.
The majority also held that a Speaker should not decide disqualification petitions while a prior notice for the Speaker’s own removal is pending.

The Court found no constitutional provision permitting the Governor independently to advance the session merely because he believed the Government had lost political support.
Questions of majority must ordinarily be tested on the Assembly floor through constitutionally proper procedures.
The Governor could not create the conditions of that test by:
choosing the date;
prescribing the agenda; and
directing the order in which matters would be considered.
Those actions transformed the Governor from a neutral constitutional head into an active participant in party politics.
The Council of Ministers remained in office and had not advised the session’s advancement.
The Governor’s directions therefore violated the cabinet form of government.
On the Speaker’s position, the majority reasoned that a Speaker facing a pending removal notice might lack the necessary appearance of impartiality while deciding defection petitions capable of changing the House’s composition.
Accordingly, such disqualification proceedings should await resolution of the removal motion.
Because the Governor’s initial actions were unconstitutional, the subsequent Assembly proceedings built upon them could not survive.
The Court sought to restore the constitutional position existing before the illegal intervention.

The Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the Governor’s order advancing the Assembly session and prescribing its agenda.
The resulting legislative proceedings were quashed.
The status quo existing before the Governor’s unconstitutional intervention was restored.