Arunachal Guv cdn't have acted on BJP MLAs' resolution:SC told

The Supreme Court, which is examining constitutional schemes on developments relating to the month-long impasse over the Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh, was today told that the Governor could not have acted on a resolution by opposition BJP MLAs and two independents to advance the assembly session.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Nabam Rebia, who was allegedly removed from the post of Speaker by rebel Congress and BJP MLAs, submitted that the Governor could only convene the assembly session on the aid and advice of the government as had happened when January 14 was first fixed as the date for convening the session.

As the senior advocate was making submission, a five- judge Constitution bench headed by Justice J S Khehar, asked him whether Speaker Rebia, as a matter of "constitutional propriety" should not have desisted from exercising his powers in disqualifying 14 rebel MLAs, knowing well that a resolution expressing no-confidence in him has been moved.
Sibal responded to the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, P C Ghose and N V Ramana, that interpretation of the Constitution has to be to facilitate the functioning of democracy and not to pit one constitutional authority against the other.
The Supreme Court had on January 15 started examining the matter amid continuing impasse over Nabam Tuki-led Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh.

The high-voltage hearing began with Sibal's submissions, listing out legal questions, including the Governor's power to convene Assembly session without the aid and advice of the government.

Rebia was purportedly removed as the Speaker by rebel Congress and BJP MLAs in an assembly session held at a community hall in Itanagar on December 16.
It has also been alleged that the Governor had advanced the assembly sitting from January 14 to December 16 without the aid and advice of Chief Minister and his council of ministers.
There have been simultaneous developments in the political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh as the High Court on January 13 vacated its interim stay on calling the assembly and gave a free hand to the Governor to summon it, giving hope to the rebel Congress and BJP MLAs to oust the Congress government.

Hours after the Union Cabinet had yesterday decided to
recommend revocation of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, the apex court had ordered maintenance of status quo in the crisis-ridden state till it examined judicial and assembly records on disqualification of the 14 rebel Congress MLAs by former Speaker Nabam Rebia.
The interim order had came after senior lawyers F S Nariman and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Arunachal Congress leaders, had sought maintenance of status quo till their plea seeking to restrain Governor J P Rajkhowa from swearing in a new government in Arunachal Pradesh was decided.
The bench had directed the Secretary General of Arunachal Pradesh Assembly and the Gauhati High Court Registry to furnish records, pertaining to the proceedings conducted by Speaker Nabam Rebia under Xth Schedule of the Constitution pertaining to disqualification of the MLAs, by today.

The bench, while noting that some part of the records was also in the safe custody of the Gauhati High Court, had directed the Registrar General of the High Court to ensure that the sealed record pertaining to the disqualification of the 14 MLAs, was produced in this court.
Nariman and Sibal had also mentioned before the bench, which is hearing a batch of pleas on constitutional powers of the Governors, that Union Cabinet had recommended revocation of President's Rule in the state.
Both senior lawyers had urged the bench to consider their plea for interim relief yesterday, apprehending swearing-in of a new Chief Minister by today.

Nariman had said the Governor had on January 26 dismissed the Chief Minister and his council of ministers even when the assembly was in suspended animation.
The bench had then said that the interim order of the
High Court came on the ground that these 14 MLAs were not served notice.
"If you have some evidence that they (rebel MLAs) were served notice before being disqualified by the Speaker, then its altogether a different matter," the bench said.
Nariman had denied having any such record with him and said that an ad-interim order passed by the High Court cannot be passed in the limited powers of judicial review.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for some rebel Congress MLAs, had opposed the plea and contended that this petition was not maintainable.
He had said the hearing was deferred on December 14 to 15, 2015 after the Speaker was informed that notices have been not served.
The bench then said it wanted to see the original records of proceedings which happened on December 14 and 15 and posted the matter for further hearing on tomorrow.