Governor must keep clear of any political horse-trading: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court handed Arunachal Pradesh Governor JP Rajkhowa a damning indictment when it ruled that he had overstepped his constitutional role by dealing with political dissension and trying to resolve it instead of keeping the President informed about the developments. The Congress party immediately demanded the dismissal of Rajkhowa, who was appointed by the BJP and is currently on leave.

“Right now, he is on temporary leave. He should now go on permanent leave,” senior advocate and Congress leader Kapil Sibal said.

The condemnation of the Governor’s actions came on Wednesday, when the court ordered the restoration of the ousted Congress government led by Nabam Tuki in the northeastern state.

In a stinging disapproval of Rajkhowa’s conduct, the court said, “It is not within the realm of the Governor to embroil himself in any political thicket. The Governor must remain aloof from any disagreement, discord, disharmony, discontent or dissension, within individual political parties.”

The court said the activities within a political party, confirming turbulence or unrest within its ranks, are beyond the concern of the Governor. “The Governor must keep clear of any political horse-trading and even unsavoury political manipulations, irrespective of the degree of their ethical repulsiveness,” it said.



The leadership of a party is a question to be dealt with and resolved privately by the political party itself, the court said, adding that the Governor cannot make such issues a matter of his concern.

“The provisions of the Constitution do not enjoin upon the Governor the authority to resolve disputes within a political party or between rival political parties,” the apex court said. The Governor can bring this to the notice of the President, the court said.

The Modi government claimed the Governor had acted to preserve democracy when the Speaker, who was from Tuki’s party, had disqualified the rebels while facing a motion for his removal.

“It does not lie within the domain of the Governor to interfere with the functions of the Speaker. The Governor is not a guide or mentor to the Speaker. The Governor cannot require the Speaker to discharge his functions in the manner he considers constitutionally appropriate. Both the Governor and the Speaker have independent constitutional responsibilities,” the court said.

The legality of the Speaker’s decision to disqualify anybody under the anti-defection law could be challenged legally. The court also dwelled at length on the proprieties expected of constitutional functionaries, shedding clarity on the roles of the Governor and the Speaker.