New Delhi: The Union Cabinet has made a strong case for President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh after 21 rebel Congress MLAs joined hands with 11 BJP MLAs and two Independents to impeach Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia in December.
The following are details of the confidential Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s report to the Ministry of Home Affairs on the crisis in the state which was shared with President Pranab Mukherjee.
The report says: “Taking cognisance of the constitutional breakdown that has taken place in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as reported by the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 24th January 2016 had decided to recommend to the President of India to issue a Proclamation under article 356(1) of the Constitution, imposing President’s Rule in relation to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and keeping the Legislative Assembly of the State in suspended animation.
As per various reports received from the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh the constitutional breakdown has taken place on various fronts which interalia include,
(i) The law and order situation has severely deteriorated; even the Raj Bhavan was gheraoed and access to it was blocked,
(ii) There has been flouting of the provisions of Article 167(b) of the Constitution as letters of the Governor concerning issues of public importance were not being responded to
(iii) Indiscipline, lawlessness, politicking by government officials by inciting, provoking and funding certain groups to publicly organise demonstrations/ rallies for recall/removal/resignation of incumbent Governor taking place. Members of the Government are playing communal politics by inciting, provoking and funding certain student groups and other communal organisations against other tribes and even the Governor, referring to his Assamese roots.
(iiii) The Speaker of the Assembly, using the state machinery, prevented the session of the Legislative Assembly being held in the Assembly Premises, even though the session had been summoned by the Governor, by locking of the Assembly premises and issuing orders preventing entry of even the members of the Legislative Assembly. Speaker’s order to not allow the Legislature to even visit the Assembly, what to talk of having a session of the Assembly, is a grave act in the democratic set up of our Constitution. The functioning of the Legislature through a premises which is the Assembly is sacrosanct and symbolises the democratic willpower of the people. Locking of the Assembly is no less than locking of the Constitution of India itself.
(v) The Governor, who is the nominee of the President of India, is being publicly insulted and humiliated and the state administration is behaving as a silent spectator. “Gherao” and blockading of the Governor and the Raj Bhavan who is the nominee of the President of India amounts to constitutional breakdown in the State.
(vi) As per Article 174 of the Constitution, six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the Legislative Assembly in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. According to one interpretation the next session of the assembly should therefore have taken place latest by 21st January, 2016 as by that time six months elapsed. On the other hand, the other interpretation is that an Assembly session was indeed held albeit in premises outside the Assembly Building (where majority of the members had voted) as access to the main Assembly Building was prevented. It is worth mentioning that the assembly session which took place on 16th December 2015 has been disputed by Shri Nabam Tuki & his supporters. Whether this assembly session is valid or not is under litigation in the Supreme Court. In the eventuality, the Supreme Court rules in favour of the interpretation that this assembly session was not valid then in any case there will be constitutional breakdown because the requirement of Article 174(1) would have been breached. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court holds that the December 16 session was valid, then it is clear that the current Government is in a minority, and is not allowing the testing of the majority. Therefore in either case, the state is heading for a constitutional crisis.
