President Pranab Mukherjee on Monday dismissed Arunachal Pradesh Governor J.P. Rajkhowa, after it became apparent that he was not going to quit as desired by the Centre.
A communiqué from Rashtrapathi Bhavan said Mr. Rajkhowa “shall cease to hold office” and that Meghalaya Governor V. Shanmuganathan would discharge the functions of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, until regular arrangements were made.
Mr. Rajkhowa’s conduct had come in for adverse criticism from the Supreme Court for advancing an Assembly session without advice from the Cabinet. His action had set off a flurry of events that culminated in the imposition of President’s Rule and later the installation of a regime led by a Congress dissident.
In its judgment, the court restored the deposed government of Chief Minister Nabam Tuki. He resigned soon after returning to office to pave the way for Congress legislators to close ranks under Pema Khandu, the present Chief Minister.
After the verdict, it appears that the Centre had tried to prevail on him to demit office, citing medical grounds, by August 31. But he chose to ignore the advisory.
Sections of the media reported him as saying he would want to be dismissed. A few days ago, he reportedly told the Guwahati-based TV channel DY365, “I will not resign. I want them to dismiss me… Let the President express his displeasure. Let the government use provisions of Article 156 of the Constitution.”
This provision specifies that “the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President” and that the Governor may “by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office”.
In a way, Mr. Rajkhowa’s position had become untenable after a Constitution Bench, on July 13, quashed his decision to advance the Assembly session from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015, a move that triggered political unrest in the sensitive border State and culminated in the declaration of President’s Rule on January 26.
The Bench had described the happenings in Arunachal Pradesh as a “thrashing given to the Constitution and a spanking to governance”. It had observed that the Governor was not an “all-pervading super constitutional authority”.
