The bench grilled Andhyarujina on the scope of Article 179 [c] which deals with the removal of the Speaker by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly.
Advertisement
Clause (C) of the constitution’s article 179 says that no resolution for the removal of speaker or deputy speaker of an assembly “shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution”.
This was the first time Rajkhowa was defending his contentious decision to bring forward the session from January 14, 2016, to December 16 previous year before the bench.
The bench also referred to the Governor’s letter on summoning the assembly session and fixing the agenda for the house and said “the discretion of the House has been taken away by the Governor”.
The bench did not concur with the submissions of senior advocate L Nageshwar Rao, appearing for the two rebel MLAs, that the Speaker should have conducted an inquiry after he received their resignation letters, saying their letters are irrevocable as if they were executing a Will.
Andhyarujina explained that the principle is having the assembly as early as possible.
Misra joined issue with the counsel by saying that the Governor has the obligation to ensure that the 10th Schedule is complied with in a proper manner. “This has never happened anywhere”, he said. Removal of a Governor or removal of a speaker? The Governor feared the biased Speaker would act in support of the Chief Minister… Nariman said the governor had sought legal opinion on Thongdok’s plea.
“You didn’t exercise discretion”.
Supreme Court dismisses plea of the two MLAs against a Gauhati High Court decision upholding Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia accepting their resignations.
The court said that the constitutional course for the governor would likely have been to hold a floor test, or a vote in the house to check if the chief minister and his council of ministers still enjoyed a majority.
He had said, “We will challenge the matter”.
“What wrong the Governor did?”
The bench had rejected the Centre’s opposition in giving documents seized from former CM’s office and cabinet colleagues after imposition of President’s Rule The court had directed the Centre to make copies and return “forthwith” by Friday all seized private letters, files and documents to the former CM, Ministers and parliamentary secretaries and are in the custody of the Administrator through the Chief Secretary.
Andhyarujina tried to give Governor’s discretion a high status in the Constitution.
Advertisement
Drawing from the Constituent Assembly Debates, he said Ambedkar wanted the Governor to exercise discretion, and that was why it was given Constitutional protection.
