Dy Speaker has no authority to quash Speaker's order: SC

Disqualified Deputy Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly had "no authority" to set aside the Speaker's decision of disqualifying 14 rebel Congress MLAs including him, Justice M B Lokur said today.
Justice Lokur, who concurred with Justice J S Khehar but wrote a separate judgement, gave some different and additional reasons for arriving at the same conclusions and dealt with five questions in the verdict.
The judge, who set aside the Gauhati High Court order dismissing the petition of Speaker and others challenging the Governor's order preponing the assembly session and the order of Deputy Speaker quashing the Speaker's order disqualifying 14 rebel Congress MLAs, said that under the Tenth schedule of the Constitution, Deputy Speaker has no authority to tamper with the order of the Speaker.

"It is also important to note that the Deputy Speaker was himself disqualified from the membership of the Legislative Assembly by the Speaker and he could certainly not have set aside the order passed against him and in respect of which he would be the beneficiary.
"There is no doubt that the Deputy Speaker had no authority at all to set aside the decision of the Speaker passed under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. The fifth question is answered in the negative," he said.
Justice Lokur gave the findings while answering the question as to "whether the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh was entitled at law to set aside the order of the Speaker... By which the Speaker had disqualified 14 members of the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh (including the Deputy Speaker) under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution."

While allowing the appeals of Speaker Nabam Rebia and state Congress chief whip Bamang Felix, Justice Lokur said the January 13 verdict of the Gauhati High Court is set aside.

Justice Lokur said the issue before the apex court was
not whether the disqualification of 14 MLAs was valid as it had already been decided by the Gauhati High Court. It was also not concerned with the decision of the High Court or the power or propriety of the decision of the Speaker.
Discussing the sequence of events, the judge noted that Speaker Nabam Rebia had given a show cause notice to 14 rebel Congress MLAs on December 7, 2015 asking why they should not be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.

Thereafter, the Speaker disqualified the 14 MLAs by his December 15 last year's order.
Justice Lokur noted that Deputy Speaker Tenzing Norbu Thongdok passed an order on the same day, saying the Speaker lacked competence to pass the disqualification order and that he had not followed constitutional and legal procedures.
The Deputy Speaker had said the Speaker had lost his competence to pass the disqualification order since a notice of November 19, 2015, for his removal was pending and was to come up before the Legislative Assembly on December 16, 2015.
The judge said that "In passing his order of December 15, 2015, the Deputy Speaker purported to derive his power from the message given by the Governor to the Legislative Assembly on December 9, 2015 requiring the Deputy Speaker to conduct the proceedings of the House on the resolution for removal of the Speaker."

"What is important to note is that the Deputy Speaker was to preside over the House on December 16, 2015. He certainly had no derivative power from the message of the Governor dated December 9, 2015 to take over the functions of the Speaker or to sit in judgment over the decision of the Speaker of December 15, 2015," Justice Lokur said.
"In the view that I have taken, I am of opinion that the view expressed by my learned Brothers relating to the power or propriety of the Speaker taking a decision under 10th Schedule of the Constitution with regard to the 14 members of the Legislative Assembly does not at all arise in these appeals."

Regarding the fourth question that whether the message sent by Arunachal Governor on December 9, 2015 under Article 175(2) of the Constitution was a constitutionally valid message that ought to have been and was acted upon by the Legislative Assembly, Justice Lokur said it "does not arise in the circumstances of the case".