Arunachal verdict evokes mixed reactions

The Supreme Court verdict on Arunachal Pradesh was dubbed by some expert today as the finest example of the checks and balance in a parliamentary democracy, while some others questioning that it was silent on the issue of installation of a fresh government in the state.
"The Court, either due to lack of suitable material on record or adequate assistance or otherwise, made no mention of the effect of the installation of a fresh Government and the factum of the successor having won the confidence of the majority of the House," noted Constitutional expert Govind Goel said.
"The Court found that the areas of the Governor exercising his personal discretion de hors the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers are extremely limited and certainly do not extend to the decision and messages dated December 9, 2015," Goel, whose book covering all constitution bench judgements till last year was recently released by President Pranab Mukherjee, said.

Taking a different cue and hailing the verdict, senior advocate Dushyant Dave said "it is a step that restores faith in democracy" and hailed it as an "extremely heartening development for us as a demeocracy".
Disagreeing with the findings of the apex court, senior advocate Aman Lekhi said the Governor acted for a reason which he can do under the Constitution.
But Dave, who is also the Supreme Court Bar Association president, said "This is the finest example of the checks and balance system which a parliamentary democracy is supposed to have," and "if one organ of democracy misbehaves, the other organ corrects it."

Expressing reservation over the reasoning given by the five-judge constitution bench in setting aside the orders and decisions of the Governor, Lekhi said "Governor does have powers outside those that are expressly granted to him and in certain situations, he should exercise those powers."
Lekhi also said the locking up of the assembly premises, "belligerent council of ministers, an obstinate Speaker and a situation where even the Governor was threatened, all are against the constitutional ethos."
"Under such circumstances, the Governor has got implied powers to uphold constitutional values. If it is a permissible consideration and Governor has discretion to take that into account while taking a decision, the disagreement by the Court with that decision is not a ground for intervention," he said.