#GauhatiHC: Bench hunting allegations in Arunachal Speaker’s ouster

A political battle within the confines of the courts has changed into one involving allegations of Bench hunting. It is the Gauhati High Court which is under the scanner in what could be a dispute of significant ramifications for the State of Arunachal Pradesh..The petitioner to the dispute is none other than the Speaker of Arunachal Pradesh, Nabam Rebia who has moved the Supreme Court challenging an administrative decision of the Chief Justice of Gauhati..A battery of Senior Advocates appeared for various parties in the Supreme Court today. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Senior Advocates Ashok Desai, Vikas Singh, L Nageswara Rao and Subramoniam Prasad appeared for the Respondents which include the Deputy Speaker, and various MLAs..Background: Speaker v. Deputy Speaker.The case involves a political battle which had culminated in the removal of Nabam Rebia from the post of Speaker..The case has its origins in two resolutions – one for the removal of Speaker of the Assembly and the other for the removal of the Deputy Speaker. Rebel Congress MLAs had sided with BJP MLAs for removing the Speaker while the Congress government, led by Chief Minister Nabam Tuki, opposed the same. A Special session was convened by the Governor at the request of the Deputy Speaker, and against the advice of the Speaker..The Governor also placed the resolution for removal of the Speaker as the first item of business to be transacted by the House. This Special Session was held outside the house in a community hall and a notification was issued by the Deputy Speaker declaring that the office of the Speaker had fallen vacant..In the High Court.Rebia filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the notification issued by the Deputy Speaker as well as the convening of the Special session. The same was heard by Hrishikesh Roy J. who, by an order dated December 17, kept in abeyance the orders under challenge including the removal of the Speaker..It is alleged that after this stay order, the opposite parties approached the High Court Registry praying that the matter be heard by a different Bench since Senior Advocate DK Mishra, who will be representing them, cannot argue before Roy J. They also filed applications seeking modification/ vacation of the order passed by Justice Roy..The request for change of Bench was allowed and the matter was mentioned before Sharma J. on December 21 when Sharma J. proceeded to issue notice in the application for vacation of Justice Roy’s order. It is the petitioner’s contention that he was not aware as to why the matter came up before Sharma J., and was handed an administrative note regarding the change of the Bench only at the time of mentioning before the new Bench..The Petitioners then moved an application seeking the recusal of Sharma J. The same was, however taken up by the Acting Chief Justice of Gauhati in his chambers on the administrative side and rejected without giving the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard..To the Supreme Court of India.The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court challenging the said administrative order of the acting Chief Justice. The petitioner has also prayed for maintaining status quo in the main writ petition before the High Court till this case is finally decided..The matter was heard at length by a Bench comprising Justice JS Khehar and Justice C Nagappan. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal alleged Bench hunting by the respondents in the High Court..“The matter was shifted to Justice Sharma’s court on the ground that Senior Advocate DK Mishra cannot argue before Justice Roy. But when the matter was mentioned before Justice Sharma, Mishra was not present in High court but was in Calcutta”, he said..Senior Advocate L Nageswara Rao appearing for the respondents questioned the petitioners’ conduct of shying away from arguing the case in the High Court..“Why is it that you don’t want to argue the case? Why are you shying away from arguing the case on merits”, he asked..The hearing on maintainability of the petition is progressing and will continue tomorrow..It is interesting to note that Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph in his concurring judgment in the NJAC case, had held that judges should give adequate reasons while recusing from a case..Image courtesy:.Ashok Desai.Kapil Sibal