Arunachal governor to appeal against HC order

A day after the Gauhati High Court issued a stay order on all decisions by Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa and Deputy Speaker of state legislative assembly T N Thongdok with regard to the Assembly session between December 16 and December 17, Governor Rajkhowa has decided to appeal against the order.

“There is Jungle Raj in the state, there is no control. I do not belong to any political party. I have written against some ministers engaged in corruption. There is a misinformation campaign against me,” Rajkhowa told reporters at Tezpur in Assam while on way to Guwahati to seek legal recourse.

The High Court, in its order, has termed the Governor’s action ‘tainted’ and únworthy’ of a state’s constitutional head.

“The governor acts as constitutional head and therefore his decision to advance the Assembly session without the advice of the chief minister and primarily on requisition made by Opposition MLAs, taints the governor’s order and rendered it unworthy of the state’s constitutional head,” reads an excerpt of the December 17 order passed by Justice Hrikesh Roy, who heard the writ petition filed by Speaker Nabam Rebia.

The court categorically stated that the governor has taken decision beyond his jurisdiction and questioned his “interventions” citing that the resolution to move the motion of impeachment against the deputy speaker was taken even before that of the Speaker was notified.

“Moreover, the resolution of removal of the deputy speaker was moved prior to a similar resolution for removal of the Speaker. Yet, the Governor had fixed the latter resolution as the first agenda. This suggests a non bonafide intention of the constitutional head in context of his decision to advance the Assembly session by a month,” the court further observed.

The court has only indirectly hinted that Rajkhowa’s action favoured a particular political formation. “The impugned steps taken by the governor which felicitated the political battle to move in certain direction in the tussle of power, reflects the non-neutral role of the constitutional head and this is undermining the democratic process,” the court said.