THE Union Cabinet’s recommendation for bringing Arunachal Pradesh under central rule has come in for a lot of flak considering that the case is pending before the Supreme Court. On Monday, Home Minister Rajnath Singh met President Pranab Mukherjee to explain the circumstances under which the government decided to impose President’s Rule in the border state of Arunachal Pradesh. The Congress Party, Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal and Bihar CM, Nitish Kumar have lashed out at the Modi Government calling this move a reflection of the Central Government’s political intolerance. Going by the Governor JP Rajkhowa’s report the state’s constitutional machinery has broken down under chief minister Nabam Tuki.
Arunachal Pradesh was rocked by a political crisis on December 16 last year, when 21 Congress MLAs joined hands with 11 BJP members and two Independents to “impeach” Assembly Speaker Nabam Rebia from a makeshift venue in Itanagar. The Speaker called the meeting “illegal and unconstitutional”. Only 27 MLAs in the 60-member assembly, including chief minister Tuki and his ministerial colleagues, boycotted the proceedings. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court rules the session invalid, it would amount to a constitutional breakdown because the assembly has breached Article 174 of the Constitution – mandating that the gap between two sessions of the assembly should not exceed six months. However, if the top court rules that the session was valid, it would mean that the State’s Congress government was in a minority but unwilling to let a floor test of its strength be conducted. In that case the State Government would be violating Article 167(b) of the Constitution, which requires the Government to respond to Governor Rajkhowa’s request for information regarding affairs of the state as well as legislative proposals.
Meanwhile the law and order situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the Raj Bhavan was gheraoed and access to it blocked. What is worse is that the Governor has alleged in his reports that Government officials were indulging in indiscipline, lawlessness and politicking even while the Central Government says it has evidence that a section of the bureaucracy was funding certain student groups and others pressure groups to rant against the Governor. This situation is unwarranted and it bodes ill that the office of the Governor should be the subject of so much controversy, if he was indeed fulfilling his constitutional duties