The historic judgment of the Supreme Court which restored the deposed Congress government back into power in the sensitive border State of Arunachal Pradesh has an unexpected critic — the State's former Assembly Speaker.
Approaching the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a review petition, the former Speaker Nabam Rebia makes it a point to praise the July 13 verdict as a “watershed moment” in the country's Constitutional history, but adds that certain portions of the verdict has created a Constitutional hiatus and provided “an escape route to Constitutional sinners” who defect and indulge in anti-party activities.
It was Mr. Rebia's decision to disqualify 14 rebel Congress legislators when a resolution for his removal was pending which led to a power struggle with the State Governor and culminated in the declaration of President's rule in the State.
The focus of the review petition is the restraint placed on an Assembly Speaker, facing a notice for his own removal, from adjudicating the disqualification of MLAs for defection under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
The Bench led by Justice J.S. Khehar has held that in such a situation, the Speaker should first clear his name through a majority vote and only then proceed to consider the disqualification of the MLAs. Mr. Rebia's petition was settled by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and drafted by Devadatt Kamat.
The petition contended that while incapacitating the Speaker, the Supreme Court has not provided any alternative adjudicatory mechanism to try legislators under the Tenth Schedule. This has left a constitutional vacuum and would delay anti-defection proceedings.
“The power of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule cannot be nullified or stultified on an apprehension of abuse. Such a course of interpretation is not available in constitutional interpretation... The ‘constitutional faith’ invested in the Speaker cannot be held to have been breached or under a cloud if a resolution for removal of the Speaker is pending,” it contended.
The petition counters that this interpretation of Article 179 violated the very constitutional scheme envisaged by the founding fathers.
“The words ‘the then Members of the Assembly’ indicates and is relatable only to the composition of the House on the date when the notice for removal of the Speaker is being considered (in the House) and not relatable to the date/time when the notice for removal is given,” the petition contended.
