A classic example of how complicated legal position is, comes from Mahabharata. Whose right is more valid to ascend the throne? Is it that of the king or is it the son of someone who ruled sometime before if his son is elder than the ruling one’s son? While Suyodhana staked his claim because his father is the king, Yudhistira staked his claim stating the fact that his father was one of the kings of the kingdom and he is elder to Suyodhana. Else, Bhishma, Drona and the other heavyweights wouldn’t have looked at the Pandavas as rebels. Staring into past, we have got sufficient information to assess the story, but people contemporary, were they in a position to decide?
Now, take a look at the Arunachal crisis. 21 MLAs out of 47 from the ruling Congress wanted the Chief Minister Nabam Tuki to get down and gave a no confidence motion. The Speaker, Nabam Rebia, a cousin of the Chief Minister refused to convene the session and gave the date of convening as 14 Jan, exactly six months after the motion date while mandate states that a no confidence motion should be addressed in six months. And to break the opposition, the speaker dismissed 14 MLAs as against the 21 since any number less than 16 is valid for anti-defection law. May be, he planned, once the 14 are out, the balance 7 can be booted out. The MLAs went to the Governor complaining about this and the Governor preponed the Assembly to Dec 16. The ruling party led by Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia resisted physical access to the Assembly forcing the MLAs to convene at a different location under the aiges of the Deputy Speaker who was also in the rebel camp. As expected, the Speaker was impeached and the CM brought down in a no confidence motion. The Speaker went to the Courts and High Court rejected his case. He then went to the Supreme Court which ordered that Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia should be reinstated and asked the Governor not to meddle into political discussions. In the meanwhile, when the new CM, Kalko Phul was ruling, the Nabam Tuki camp created massive disturbances forcing the Governor to recommend President’s rule. Supreme Court’s judgement reinstated Nabam Rebia stating the Governor doesn’t have the right to force convene the Assembly because some MLAs are discontent. In simpler words, the Governor decided that the Speaker and CM are hand in glove running a minority government and took law into his hands. Can he or can he not??
Now, a few questions arise here -
1. If the speaker or Cabinet refuses to convene the Assembly, what is the redressal? Can a Governor intervene?
2. 21 out of 47 MLAs rejected the CM. Can the Speaker decide that only 15 defected and dismiss them(in this case it was 14) since that is the maximum number which disqualifies them under anti-defection? Once the number is down, can he disqualify the balance 6 as it is less than 26? What is the redressal the MLAs have got in this regard?
3. What is the basis for overturning of a President’s rule, especially if it is related to degradation of law and order? For that matter, what is the basis for imposing President’s Rule? Are there any clear cut guidelines?
4. What sort of action should be taken if physical access to government property is denied?
5. Now, if again, the Speaker refuses to summon the Assembly, what should the MLAs do?
6. Can the Governor decide the agenda of the Assembly in case the speaker is not interested in attending the Assembly?
May be, the Law Ministry or someone should bring out a clear cut procedural guidelines as to what should happen if there is dissent. Else, these sort of chaotic cases turn up every now and then.
Now, take a look at the Arunachal crisis. 21 MLAs out of 47 from the ruling Congress wanted the Chief Minister Nabam Tuki to get down and gave a no confidence motion. The Speaker, Nabam Rebia, a cousin of the Chief Minister refused to convene the session and gave the date of convening as 14 Jan, exactly six months after the motion date while mandate states that a no confidence motion should be addressed in six months. And to break the opposition, the speaker dismissed 14 MLAs as against the 21 since any number less than 16 is valid for anti-defection law. May be, he planned, once the 14 are out, the balance 7 can be booted out. The MLAs went to the Governor complaining about this and the Governor preponed the Assembly to Dec 16. The ruling party led by Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia resisted physical access to the Assembly forcing the MLAs to convene at a different location under the aiges of the Deputy Speaker who was also in the rebel camp. As expected, the Speaker was impeached and the CM brought down in a no confidence motion. The Speaker went to the Courts and High Court rejected his case. He then went to the Supreme Court which ordered that Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia should be reinstated and asked the Governor not to meddle into political discussions. In the meanwhile, when the new CM, Kalko Phul was ruling, the Nabam Tuki camp created massive disturbances forcing the Governor to recommend President’s rule. Supreme Court’s judgement reinstated Nabam Rebia stating the Governor doesn’t have the right to force convene the Assembly because some MLAs are discontent. In simpler words, the Governor decided that the Speaker and CM are hand in glove running a minority government and took law into his hands. Can he or can he not??
Now, a few questions arise here -
1. If the speaker or Cabinet refuses to convene the Assembly, what is the redressal? Can a Governor intervene?
2. 21 out of 47 MLAs rejected the CM. Can the Speaker decide that only 15 defected and dismiss them(in this case it was 14) since that is the maximum number which disqualifies them under anti-defection? Once the number is down, can he disqualify the balance 6 as it is less than 26? What is the redressal the MLAs have got in this regard?
3. What is the basis for overturning of a President’s rule, especially if it is related to degradation of law and order? For that matter, what is the basis for imposing President’s Rule? Are there any clear cut guidelines?
4. What sort of action should be taken if physical access to government property is denied?
5. Now, if again, the Speaker refuses to summon the Assembly, what should the MLAs do?
6. Can the Governor decide the agenda of the Assembly in case the speaker is not interested in attending the Assembly?
May be, the Law Ministry or someone should bring out a clear cut procedural guidelines as to what should happen if there is dissent. Else, these sort of chaotic cases turn up every now and then.
No comments:
Post a Comment