Governor can’t embroil in political thicket: SC

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered restoration of the Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh by quashing as “unconstitutional” Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s decision to advance the Assembly session, saying that he cannot embroil himself in any “political thicket” or take an “individual call” when an elected government enjoys majority in the House.

It added the President can and must intervene in case of a breakdown of communication between the Governor and the Council of Ministers, as seen in Arunachal Pradesh, to break the impasse and restore constitutional order. Such a situation would be “most unfortunate” and “detrimental” to democracy, Justice MB Lokur, who concurred with the judgement delivered by Justice JS Khehar, said in a separate verdict.

The court held that there can be no interference at the behest of the Governor as long as democratic process in the Assembly is functioned through a majority government. He must keep clear of political horse-trading and unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness and avoid acting as the “ombudsman” of the state legislature, it said.

In its unanimous verdict, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Justice Khehar, held that when the CM and his Council of Ministers enjoy a majority in the House, power vested with the Governor under Article 174 of the Constitution to summon, prorogue and dissolve the House must be exercised in consonance with their aid and advise and this was binding. 

“It is not within the realm of the Governor to embroil himself in any political thicket. He must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties,” it said.

The Bench said it is not within the Governor’s domain to interfere with the functions of the Speaker as he is neither a guide, nor a mentor to the Speaker and has no role whatsoever in the removal of Speaker or Deputy Speaker.

Holding that the Governor cannot be an “overriding authority” over representatives of the people, the court said, “Allowing the Governor to overrule the resolve and determination of the state legislature or state executive would not harmoniously augur with the strong democratic principles enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution.” 

The Bench said, “As long as the democratic process in the Assembly functions through a government, which has the support of the majority, there can be no interference at the behest of the Governor.” 

“We are of the view, that in ordinary circumstances, during the period when the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers enjoy the confidence of the majority of the House, the power vested with the Governor under Article 174, to summon, prorogue and dissolve the House(s) must be exercised in consonance with the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers,” it said.

“The Governor has a limited scope of authority, relating to the exercise of executive functions, in his own discretion, i.e. without any aid and advice. The State Legislature, does not function under the Governor. In sum and substance, the Governor just cannot act as the Ombudsman of the State Legislature,” it said, adding, that the message of Governor Rakhkhowa was beyond “constitutional authority” vested with him.