COURT, CONSTITUTION,CHAAL-CHALAN & ARUNACHAL

“Status quo ante as on 15.12.2015” was the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Arunachal Pradesh case.

Tuki should have been the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

But Tuki resigned.

Pema Khandu instead shall be the Chief Minister.

Pema Khandu however was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker who was acting in tandem with the Chief Minister Tuki and this was the reason for the Governor to pass his Order of 9.12.2015  which was set aside by the Supreme Court to order status quo. But Khandu not Tuki will take oath as the Chief Minister.

The Supreme Court said the Governor was wrong. But the Supreme Court also said that the Speaker was wrong. So Pema Khandu could not be disqualified. But if Pema Khandu could not be disqualified how could the Governor’s Order against the disqualifying be wrong? And if the Governor’s Order was wrong and the Speaker was right Khandu could not become the Chief Minister!

The Supreme Court felt Governor could not have exercised discretionary powers outside constitutional sanction. However Tuki admittedly (as Khandu’s becoming Chief Minister itself shows) did not enjoy support of the support majority in the Legislative Assembly. It was for this reason that the Speaker locked up the Legislative Assembly itself and did not earlier respond to any communication from the Governor aside from combining with Tuki to threaten the Governor at his residence.  How is the foisting of Tuki who lost confidence of the Assembly which could not be demonstrated in the Assembly because the Assembly itself was locked aside from resorting to extraconstitutional means against a high constitutional functionary constitutionally sanctioned?

Did the Governor act at his whim (which is not constitutionally sanctioned) or “under the Constitution” which is? If those (the Chief Minister and Speaker) who have to comply (by responding to messages of the Governor and holding the Assembly Session as mandated aside from taking law into their own hands) choose to defy is the Constitution is the Governor supposed to acquiesce in the illegality and gross impropriety and not enjoined to act correct a wrong which would otherwise be un-redressed?

Kalikho Phul was the Chief Minister replaced by the Supreme Court and Tuki placed in the saddle. Phul supports Khandu not Tuki and with is support Khandu not Tuki is the Chief Minster and Khandu himself had supported Phul when the latter was Chief Minister. Phul too was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker which was the reason why the Governor passed the Order and sent the Message both of which were set aside by the Supreme Court.

Now both Khandu and Phul are part of the ruling dispensation and Tuki is out abandoning new allies and invoking the old ones.

Is this the case of politics stumping both law and values and has the “whim” of the Governor been vindicated not the “reasoned order” of the Supreme Court?

2 thoughts on “COURT, CONSTITUTION,CHAAL-CHALAN & ARUNACHAL

  1. The oath of the Governor is also similar to that of the President, namely, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. No-trust against the Speaker as well as disqualification petitions are said to be still pending. Who will decide and how?

  2. When President’s rule is imposed, the pleasure of the Governor stood withdrawn. Third schedule mandates that ministers shall take oaths before entering upon office. How can ministers assume office without oath? Without fresh oath from Governor, Tuki is an usurper. In 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 at page 3 thereof, vide case No. 13–1080 dated 09 March 2015, in the matter of Department of Transportation et al Vs. Association of American Roadways, the US Supreme Court per ALITO, J.,held that “Those who exercise the power of Government are set apart from ordinary citizens. Because they exercise greater power, they are subject to special restraints. There should never be a question whether someone is an officer of the United States because, to be an officer, the person should have sworn an oath and possess a commission.
    Therefore, it follows that the restoration of status quo ante, should be implemented by swearing Mr. Tuki once again, and tafter he facing the Legislatively Assembly only, he may choose to resign, following which he may be allowed to continue in office or the Constitution will take its own course.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s