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

News Snippets

  • Justice Surya Kaqnt sworn in as the 53rd CJI. Says free speech needs to be strengthened
  • Plume originating from volacnic ash in Ehtiopia might delay flights in India today
  • Supreme Court drops the fraud case against the Sandesaras brothers after they agree to pay back Rs 5100 cr. It gives them time till Dec 17 to deposit the money. The court took pains to say that this order should not be seen as a precedent in such crimes.
  • Chinese authorities detain a woman from Arunachal Pradesh who was travelling with her Indian passport. India lodges strong protest
  • S&P predicts India's economy to grow at 6.5% in FY26
  • The December MPC meet of RBI may reduce rates as the nation has seen steaqdy growth with little or no inflation
  • World Boxing Cup Finals: Hitesh Gulia wins gold in 70kgs
  • Kabaddi World Cup: Indian Women win their second consecutive title at Dhaka, beating Taipei 35-28
  • Second Test versus South Africa: M Jansen destroys India as the hosts lose all hopes of squaring the series. India out for 201, conceding a lead of 288 runs which effectively means that South Africa are set to win the match and the series
  • Defence minister Rajnath Singh said that Sindh may be back in India
  • After its total rejection by voters in Bihar, the Congress high command said that it happened to to 'vote chori' by the NDA and forced elimination of voters in the SIR
  • Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined a Patna cafe Rs 30000 for adding service charge on the bill of a customer after it was found that the billing software at the cafe was doing it for all patrons
  • Kolkata HC rules that the sewadars (managers) of a debuttar (Deity's) property need not take permission from the court for developing the property
  • Ministry of Home Affairs said that there were no plans to introduce a bill to change the status of Chandigarh in the ensuing winter session of Parliament
  • A 20-year-old escort and her agent were held in connection with the murder of a CA in a Kolkata hotel
Iconic actor Dharmendra is no more, cremated at Pawan Hans crematorium in Juhu, Mumbai
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.