Justice B.K. Sharma of the Gauhati high court, in his judgment rejecting the writ petition challenging the impeachment of the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, Nabam Rebia, and refusing to go into the merits of a petition challenging the Arunachal governor’s decision advancing the date of the Assembly session, observed, “If in the kind of situation that was prevailing in the Arunachal Pradesh, as highlighted in the petition, the governor took the impugned action, it cannot be said to be unconstitutional so as to warrant interference by the existing power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The order of Justice Sharma said, “As regards the challenge to the notification of December 16, 2015 removing the petitioner involved in writ petition No. 7745/2015, the same was passed in the preponed Assembly session and the same was pursuant to the motion for removal that was passed by 33 MLAs of 60 members of the House voting in favour of the resolution for removal of the Arunachal Speaker, and the resolution was notified on December 16, 2015.”
The judge observed, “Once the impugned decision of the governor exercised under Articles 174 (A) and 175 (2) of the Constitution of India is upheld, the transaction of business in the preponed Assembly session, including the resolution adopted by the 33 MLAs in the House of 60 members, constitutes a majority towards removal of the Speaker... will also have to be upheld.”
What is significant is that the same Assembly session that removed the Speaker had also elected former finance minister Kalikho Pul as the new leader of the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly.
