Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Supreme Court of India · 13 July 2016 · 5 judges
The Governor's order preponing the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly session and his message fixing its agenda, issued without the Council of Ministers' aid and advice, were unconstitutional; consequent Assembly decisions were set aside and the status quo ante restored.
Facts
The Governor, on the Chief Minister's advice, summoned the sixth session of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly for 14.1.2016. On 19.11.2015, 13 MLAs gave notice of a resolution to remove Speaker Nabam Rebia. On 7.12.2015 the Congress Chief Whip sought disqualification of 14 INC MLAs under the Tenth Schedule. On 9.12.2015 the Governor, on his own, preponed the session to 16.12.2015 and sent a message making the Speaker's removal the first item, with the Deputy Speaker presiding, and directing that no Presiding Officer alter the party composition of the House. On 15.12.2015 the Speaker disqualified the 14 MLAs, and the Deputy Speaker set that order aside. On 16.12.2015 the Speaker was removed, and on 17.12.2015 the Government was declared to have lost confidence. The Gauhati High Court's order of 13.1.2016 on the Speaker's and two MLAs' writ petitions was challenged.
Questions before the Court
- What is the extent of the Governor's discretion under Article 163, and is its exercise open to judicial review?
- Can the Governor summon or prepone a session of the Assembly under Article 174 without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers?
- Can the Governor, on his own, send a message under Article 175 fixing the agenda and procedure for a resolution to remove the Speaker?
- May a Speaker decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule while a notice of resolution for his own removal is pending?
What the Court held
- The Governor's discretion is limited to situations where a constitutional provision expressly requires him to act in his discretion, or where that intent emerges from a legitimate interpretation of the provision. Discretion exercised beyond the Governor's jurisdictional authority is subject to judicial review. The Calcutta and Bombay High Court views on Article 163(2) were set aside.
- While the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers enjoy majority support, the Article 174 power to summon, prorogue and dissolve the House must be exercised on their aid and advice; only if a floor test shows loss of confidence may the Governor act on his own. The order of 9.12.2015 violated Article 163 read with Article 174.
- Messages to the Assembly under Article 175 can be sent only on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The Governor has no role in the removal of the Speaker or in Tenth Schedule proceedings, so the message of 9.12.2015 violated Article 163 read with Article 175.
- Per the majority (Khehar, Ghose, Ramana and Dipak Misra, JJ.), it is constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule while a notice of resolution for his own removal from office is pending.
- The Governor must keep out of disputes within or between political parties. All steps taken by the Assembly pursuant to the order and message were set aside, and the status quo ante as on 15.12.2015 was restored.
Why it matters
The judgment confines the Governor's discretion under Article 163 to cases the Constitution expressly provides for or necessarily implies, holds such exercise open to judicial review, and requires the power to summon the House and send messages to be exercised on ministerial advice while the Government has majority support. It lays down that a Speaker facing a pending removal notice should not decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule. It ordered restoration of the status quo ante as on 15.12.2015.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We therefore hereby reject the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents, that the Governor has the freedom to determine when and in which situation, he should take a decision in his own discretion, without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers. We accordingly, also turn down the contention, that whenever the Governor in the discharge of his functions, takes a decision in his own discretion, the same would be final and binding, and beyond the purview of judicial review.”
“In view of the consideration recorded hereinabove, 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. In the above situation, he is precluded to take an individual call on the issue at his own will, or in his own discretion.”
“In view of the above, we have no hesitation in concluding, that the messages addressed by the Governor to the Assembly, must abide by the mandate contained in Article 163(1), namely, that the same can only be addressed to the State Legislature, on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister as the head. The message of the Governor dated 9.12.2015, was therefore beyond the constitutional authority vested with the Governor.”
“For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we hereby hold, that it would be constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of Speaker, is pending.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
Case and bench
- Parties
- Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker
- Case
- Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 of 2016 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1259-1260 of 2016)
- Decided
- 13 July 2016
- Bench
- Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B. Lokur, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, N.V. Ramana
- Opinions
- Khehar, J. wrote the leading opinion for himself, Ghose and Ramana, JJ.; Dipak Misra, J. concurred on each aspect with an added opinion on Article 179(c). Lokur, J. agreed on Articles 163 and 174 and in the result, but found it unnecessary to decide Article 175, Article 179 and the Tenth Schedule questions; he separately held that the Deputy Speaker had no authority to set aside the Speaker's disqualification order.