oppn parties Crisis in Arunachal as Resolution Passed for Speaker's Removal

News Snippets

  • Supreme Court rules that functional disability should be the deciding factor in granting road accident damages and not any doctor-issued disability certificate
  • Supreme Court flagged the fact that nearly 56% of the vehicles plying in India were uninsured and asked the government to challan them
  • An Air India flight from Phuket to Delhi encountered severe turbulence and 17 passengers were admitted to hospital with injuries
  • Calcutta HC said that heavens won't fall if Vande Matram is made mandatory to sing in madrasas
  • Kolkata Municipal Corporation has sought government nod for increasing city's wards to 200+ to keep residents in each ward between 16000 to 18000
  • Government has said that partially filled online Census forms may be allowed
  • Government may allow fees on UPI payments above Rs 2000, except on transfer between two individuals
  • Brent crude falls below $80 per barrel
  • Government has increased the LIC offer for sale to Rs 31,400cr with an additional 4% on the block
  • Stock markets become nervous on Tuesday due to Gulf situation: Sensex slides 210 points and Nifty sheds 159 points ahead of RBI MPC meets today
  • Indian cricket team lands in Sri Lanka for a 2-Test series
  • A former French Navy pilot who had alleged that IAF had lost Rafales during Operation Sindoor has been held in France on spying charges
  • An ordinary zari worked living just 100km away from Kolkata was stunned to find Rs 100cr deposited in the bank account. The bank has frozen her account pending enquiry
  • Businessmen in Kolkata gets a Rs 5-crore extortion call, allegedly from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang
  • NTA floats tenders to secure offices and exam materials round-the-clock
Tarun Tejpal, former editor of Tehelka, was sentenced to 10 years in jail by Bombay HC for raping a colleague. This judgment overturns the acquittal by a Goa sessions court
oppn parties
Crisis in Arunachal as Resolution Passed for Speaker's Removal

By admin
First publised on 2015-12-17 17:53:41

About the Author

Sunil Garodia By our team of in-house writers.
A constitutional crisis has emerged in Arunachal Pradesh. 33 MLAs, including 20 Congress dissidents, out of the House strength of 60, passed a resolution for the removal of the State Legislative Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia. Before this, an impeachment notice was given against the Speaker on November 19th. Subsequently, the Speaker had disqualified 14 Congress MLAs. The Governor had stepped in to direct the Deputy Speaker, Tenzing Norbu Thonduk, to conduct the day’s proceedings. The Congress chief minister Nabam Tuki and the rest of 26 MLAs had not attended the session. Tuki later called the action a mockery of democracy. The AICC has deplored the governor’s action.

Two things emerge from this. Was the Speaker, against whom an impeachment motion was pending, competent enough to disqualify the 14 dissident Congress MLAs? Further, was the Governor constitutionally correct in asking the Deputy Speaker to conduct the session where the Speaker was ‘removed?’

Charges and counter charges are flying. While the Congress and the chief minister have called the assembly session illegal and questioned the constitutional validity of 14 disqualified MLAs voting for the Speaker’s removal, the BJP on the other hand has questioned the constitutional validity of the Speaker disqualifying MLAs even though an impeachment motion was pending against him. The Speaker, Nabam Rebia said that he was competent to disqualify the MLAs as the motion was not moved.

Obviously, the Governor thought otherwise. In the fitness of things, if an impeachment motion notice is given against a Speaker, he should not take such important decisions as disqualifying MLAs till the motion is moved and defeated. For, in disqualifying them, he is seen to have removed 14 such persons who would have voted in favour of the motion. Is this correct? While constitutional pundits will debate over this issue, no one can sit on judgment in his own case and neither can anyone remove persons who are likely to vote against him after an impeachment notice has been served.

As for the Governor’s role, what was he to do if he found that the some ruling party MLA’s were not supporting their own party and there was no urgency on the part of the ruling dispensation to move impeachment motion? A notice for an impeachment motion is a serious matter and it cannot be left pending for nearly a month. The Congress should first set its own house in order before pointing fingers at others.