What is it so ‘HISTORIC’ about the SC’s decision on Arunachal Pradesh


Hours after the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously subjugated Arunachal Pradesh Governor J.P. Rajkhowa's decision to advance the Assembly,it  triggered a political unrest in the sensitive border State.

The S.C also culminated the imposition demand of President Rule in Arunachal Pradesh and said all steps and decisions taken by the legislative assembly pursuant to governor's December 9, 2015 order are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

The SC judgment means the present Arunachal Pradesh government headed by KalikhoPul would have to step down now to make way for Congress government headed by NabamTuki.
The SC also struck down removal of speaker NabamRebia and said he would be restored back as Speaker of the House.

Why it is so ‘HISTORIC’?

This judgement is indeed historic in a way, that it’s the very first time that SC has led an opposition minority to lead a state in spite of having elected majority. NabamTuki called the verdict "historic", one that had ensured justice and has saved the pride of ‘Constitution of India’.

The apex court had said the verdict in this case will not only have its effect on Arunachal Pradesh, but affect every state.

Court’s Wording

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, described in its 331-page judgment the happenings in Arunachal Pradesh leading to State emergency as a “thrashing given to the Constitution and a spanking to governance.”

The Bench, through the majority judgment of Justices J.S. Khehar, P.C. Ghose and N.V. Ramana, reacted sharply, saying the Governor is not an “all-pervading super constitutional authority.”

“The Governor is not an ombudsman for the Legislature nor the Speaker’s mentor. The Governor cannot require the Speaker to discharge his functions in the manner he considers constitutionally appropriate,” Justice Khehar wrote.

“There is no justification for a Governor to be disturbed about proceedings in connection with the disqualification of MLAs under the Tenth Schedule. Because the Governor has no role therein…. Any action taken by the Governor, based on the proceedings being carried on under the Tenth Schedule, would be a constitutional impropriety,” the court held.

Punishment for Pickpocketing; but not for overruling Constitution?

We wonder why in our so called, ‘Legitimate Democracy’, we have penalisation for petty issues such as Pickpocketing, and not for annulling Constitution: The supreme Law of Nation’.

Governors at the time of their appointment, take oaths,"..I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution…”and today ironically they are the ones overruling it most often.