#Arunachal: “Spanking to governance, humiliation to elected government”, SC comes down on Governor

In the judgment delivered today in the Arunachal Pradesh case, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on Arunachal Pradesh Governor, Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa for acting “against [the] rule of law” and the Constitution..The concurring judgment authored by Justice Madan B Lokur is particularly critical of the Governor’s actions which the Court has termed as “humiliating the elected government”..The major discussion in the judgments of Justice JS Khehar and Justice Madan Lokur is with regard to the ambit of Governor’s powers under various provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 163, and the extent to which discretion can be exercised by Governor..Regarding the Governor’s order on advancing the Assembly session, Justice Lokur has made it clear that the Governor cannot invoke the concept of “individual judgment”..“While issuing the modified Order, the Governor concluded that he “may not be bound by the advice the Council of Ministers” for whatever reason. From where did the Governor derive this principle and how did he dream that he could invoke the concept of “individual judgment” should a resolution of the Council of Ministers be placed before him – the very concept that our constitution framers were not in favour of?”.The Court has gone to the extent of stating that the Governor’s act of ignoring the resolution of Council of Ministers amounted to “humiliating the elected government”..“To make matters worse and, in a sense, humiliate the elected government of the day, the Governor did ignore the resolution of the Council of Ministers taken on 14th December, 2015 when it was placed before him”..The Court has also criticised the breakdown of the communication between the Governor and the elected Government..“By this time there was a complete break-down of communications between the Governor and the elected Government and that, among other things, led to an unsavory confrontation between the Governor and some Cabinet Ministers. That interpersonal relationships of constitutional functionaries are carried out with such complete lack of cordiality and gay abandon is indeed unfortunate.”.In what could be the catch in the judgment, the court has gone on to describe the events as.“…. a thrashing given to the Constitution and a spanking to governance.”.The Court has also made it clear 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 but he chose not to..“Instead, the Governor acted in a manner not only opposed to a rule of law but also opposed to the rule of law and, therefore, arbitrarily and in a manner that certainly surprises “a sense of juridical propriety”..When the court was hearing the case earlier this year, it had refused to interfere at the interim stage when Kalikho Pul was being sworn in as Chief Minister. When the petitioner had opposed the same and sought interim protection, the Court had remarked that it was empowered to set the clock back..“…this court has the power to set things right. This court has done this before. If we agree with you, we can set the clock back. Let them do whatever they want to do”, the Bench had remarked during the hearing..It appears that the Court has done precisely that! The attention now shifts from Tilak Marg to Sansad Marg.