Restoring a government

Supreme Court order puts state governors' role under scanner

In an unprecedented verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the restoration of the government led by Nabam Tuki of the Congress in Arunachal Pradesh. Late last year, dissident activities within the Congress-led government in the state had led to the demand for impeaching the Speaker of the legislative Assembly. The governor, J P Rajkhowa, decided to advance the session of the Assembly by a month so that the impeachment motion could be discussed. Even as the Assembly voted in favour of impeaching the speaker, political crisis in the state got worse, resulting in the imposition of President’s rule on January 26. While both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party were seeking legal remedies, the absence of an interim order from the apex court to conduct a trial of strength on the floor of the Assembly led to the Centre deciding to revoke President’s rule, paving the way for dissident Congress leaders forming a government in the state in February. Five months later, a five-judge Constitution bench of the apex court has quashed the order of Arunachal Pradesh Governor Rajkhowa to advance the session of the state’s legislative Assembly by about a month. Describing that order and the governor’s other actions as unconstitutional, the apex court’s order seeks to define a governor’s powers and jurisdiction. To that extent, the Supreme Court’s verdict is likely to make governors and the political dispensation at the Centre reconsider how they should conduct themselves in discharging their responsibilities under the Constitution.

What happened in Arunachal Pradesh, however, should not be compared with the developments in Uttarakhand about two months ago. In Uttarakhand, the apex court intervened to order a temporary suspension of the President's rule in the hill state to enable a trial of strength in the legislative Assembly. The trial of strength took place and the Harish Rawat-led Congress proved its majority in the Assembly after which he was allowed to resume charge as the state's chief minister. In Arunachal Pradesh, the governor had advanced the Assembly session and helped conduct a discussion on a motion to impeach the speaker. The manner in which President’s rule was imposed in January raised many questions of propriety. Yet, the similarities between the two judicial interventions cannot be ignored. In both the cases, the government that got dislodged was headed by the Congress at a time the party in power at the Centre was the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP. The Congress has lost a few states in Assembly elections to the BJP after May 2014. In addition, the Congress had for a while lost Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh, thanks to Presidential orders. The BJP, it seems, is intent on realising its goal of a Congress-free India, by using all possible means.

The BJP leadership, quite expectedly, criticised the Supreme Court judgement describing it as yet another example of judicial overreach reducing the space even further for the central legislature and the executive. Such a conclusion is unfortunate. Instead of questioning the apex court’s verdicts, it must do some introspection to examine why in the first place these matters – pertaining both to Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh – landed in the lap of the Supreme Court. It must note that the governor’s role and powers are also under judicial scrutiny. It would perhaps be better for the government to engage in constructive dialogue with the judiciary and other stakeholders on how such unfortunate spectacles can be avoided in future.