Supreme Court today ordered restoration of the Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh by quashing as "unconstitutional" Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa's decision to advance the assembly session, saying he cannot embroil himself in any "political thicket" or take "individual call" when an elected government enjoys majority in the House.
The apex court held that there can be no interference at the behest of the Governor as long as democratic process in the assembly functioned through a majority government.
He must keep clear of any political horse-trading and even unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness and avoid acting as the "ombudsman" of the state legislature, it said.
In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar held that when the Chief Minister and his council of Ministers have majority in the House, power vested with the Governor under Article 174 of the Constitution to summon, prorogue and dissolve the House must be exercised in consonance with their aid and advice and this was binding.
"It is not within the realm of the Governor to embroil himself in any political thicket. The Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties."
"The activities within a political party, confirming turbulence, or unrest within its ranks, are beyond the concern of the Governor. The Governor must keep clear of any political horse-trading, and even unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness," the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, P C Ghose and N V Ramana, said.
Dealing with the Governor's powers, the bench said it is not within his domain to interfere with the functions of the Speaker as the Governor is neither a guide, nor a mentor to the Speaker and has no role whatsoever in the removal of Speaker or Deputy Speaker.
"Both the Governor and Speaker have independent constitutional responsibilities," Justice Khehar, writing the judgement for himself and Justices Ghose and Ramana, said.
Holding that the Governor cannot be an "overriding
authority" over representatives of the people, the apex court said "allowing the Governor to overrule the resolve and determination of the state legislature or state executive would not harmoniously augur with the strong democratic principles enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution."
In its 331-page landmark verdict, the bench said "as long as the democratic process in the assembly functions through a government, which has the support of the majority, there can be no interference at the behest of the Governor."
"We are of the view, that in ordinary circumstances, during the period when the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers enjoy the confidence of the majority of the House, the power vested with the Governor under Article 174, to summon, prorogue and dissolve the House(s) must be exercised in consonance with the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers," it said.
"In the above situation, he is precluded to take an individual call on the issue at his own will, or in his own discretion," it said.
In its judgement, the bench referred to the provisions of the Constitution and said it is apparent that exercise of executive power by the Governor "is by and large notional".
"All in all, the Governor has a limited scope of authority, relating to the exercise of executive functions, in his own discretion, i.E. Without any aid and advice.
"The aforesaid limited power of Governor is exercisable in situations expressly provided for 'by or under' the provisions of the Constitution," it said.
The apex court also said the "Governor cannot be seen to have such powers and functions, as would assign to him a dominating position over the State executive and the State legislature."
Dealing with the Arunachal Governor's December 9, 2015 message to the Assembly regarding the manner in which proceedings of the House should be conducted, the bench said reference to such matters "do not flow from the functions assigned to him".
"Thus viewed, we have no hesitation in concluding that messages addressed by the Governor to the House(s) have to be in consonance with the aid and advice tendered to him," it said.
