SC's Arunachal judgment enriches jurisprudence in India

The imposition of president rule in states by the exercise of power under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has been a subject of evolving law with the development of tools of such exercises.

The pronouncement of the recent judgement in the Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker and others case is certainly one of the landmarks in the evolution of law in India.

The judgement of the Supreme Court which restored Nabam Tuki's government in Arunachal Pradesh came out of his appeal against a judgement passed by the Gauhati High Court.

While setting aside the judgement of the Gauhati High Court and allowing his appeal, the apex court decided, the order of modification by the governor of Arunachal Pradesh issued on December 9, 2015 to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court also set aside the order of the deputy speaker of setting aside the order of the speaker of Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.

The apex court in the said judgement reached to the conclusion that the order of the governor for preponing the session of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, from January 14, 2016, to December 16, 2015 violates the constitutional mandate under Article 163 read with Article 174 of the Constitution.

Further, the apex court found the direction by the governor in the manner of conducting the proceedings of the legislative Assembly liable to be quashed for violating Article 163 and Article 175 of the Constitution.

The setting aside of the effect of such proceedings, all steps and decisions taken by the Arunachal Assembly pursuant to the governor's order have been found unsustainable by the court. In light of all such findings the Supreme Court ordered to restore status quo as it prevailed on December 15, 2015.

Observing the role of the governor in the present case, while referring to the characteristics of parliamentary democracy from an earlier judgement by itself, the court observed that "the actions of the governor were certainly not in the language of the law or the spirit of parliamentary democracy and responsible government".

Evaluating the conduct of the governor, the court also observed that "the governor was obliged to adhere to and follow the constitutional principle, that is, to be bound by the advice of the council of ministers. In the event that advice was not available and responsible government was not possible, the governor could have resorted to the 'breakdown provisions' and left it to the president to break the impasse".

The court observed further that the "governor, despite being the 'first citizen' of the State, chose to take no steps to break the impasse caused by a collapse of communications between him and the chief minister; finally, the governor took no steps to resort to the breakdown provisions and obtain impartial advice from the president".

However, the fate of restored Tuki's government depends on a floor test, but the judgment has already enriched the constitutional jurisprudence of India, especially in regard to the exercise of Article 356 in general and the role of the governor in particular.