From calling it “grossly improper” and a “political mischief” to dismissing it as “mere impropriety,” leading Constitutional experts on Monday crossed swords on the Cabinet recommendation to impose President’s rule in Congress-ruled Arunachal Pradesh without waiting for the Supreme Court to show a way out of the political turmoil.
The State’s ongoing crisis has seen “Assembly sessions” held in a hotel and even a community hall and “impeachment” of the Speaker.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said the recommendation was the kind of “political mischief, totally reprehensible, against federalism and parliamentary democracy.” He called the Cabinet’s recommendation “grossly improper,” specifically because a Constitution Bench of the highest court is examining the issue.
‘Political conspiracy’ Rajya Sabha member and senior advocate K.T.S. Tulsi did not mince his words. “The Centre is on a collision course with the Supreme Court,” he said. “Now there is no doubt that the political conspiracy in Arunachal was hatched in Delhi. By making the recommendation, the Centre wants to present the Supreme Court with a fait accompli and make the entire judicial process infructuous.”
Referring to the historic S.R. Bommai judgment, Mr. Tulsi said the Supreme Court should now seize the moment to judicially review the relevant material based on which the Cabinet advised President’s rule under Article 356(1). The nine-judge Bench verdict in 1994 had held that the validity of a Proclamation for President’s Rule can be subjected to judicial review to find out if there was mala fide exercise of power. This view was reiterated in the 2006 Bihar Assembly Dissolution case judgment involving the then State Governor Bhuta Singh.
However, Constitutional expert and senior advocate Soli Sorabjee said the debate should not ignore the fact that the Cabinet had only made a recommendation, and President Pranab Mukherjee had not accepted it. In fact, the President had sought clarifications from the government. “President’s rule has not been imposed as yet. The recommendation is only a ministerial advice to the President. It is pre-mature to file any writ petition or debate the legality of President’s rule at this point.”
Padma Bhushan awardee and Constitutional expert Subhash C. Kashyap said neither the Union Cabinet’s recommendation nor the proclamation of President’s rule would in any way affect the current Supreme Court hearing. “Even after President’s rule kicks in, the Supreme Court can revive the Legislative Assembly, which will not be dissolved but kept in a state of suspended animation, if it finds the President’s proclamation unconstitutional,” he argued.
Senior advocate Arvind P. Datar agreed that there was nothing “technically wrong” in the Cabinet recommendation when the matter is sub judice in the Supreme Court. “You can at best call it impropriety.” Mr. Datar said the entire edifice of the Article 356 law was based on the rather ambiguous phrase “failure of the Constitutional machinery in States.”
“So here the Centre can argue that there is no working government in Arunachal Pradesh. There is no functional legislature to give instructions to the Executive. Thus, there has been a failure of the Constitutional machinery in the State,” Mr. Datar said.
