×
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Arunachal ex-speaker seeks SC verdict review

Last Updated 20 July 2016, 20:00 IST
Former speaker of Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, Nebam Rabia on Wednesday moved the Supreme Court against the July 13 judgment that questioned his authority to disqualify 14 rebel Congress MLAs.

In a review petition, he disputed those parts of the judgment that asked the speaker to hold his hands and not decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule when members had moved for his removal.

Rabia claimed the interpretation of Article 179(c) by the five-judge Constitution Bench was “entirely incorrect” as it failed to notice the relevant Constituent Assembly debates in relation to the words “all the then members”.

The judgment was “an error apparent on the face of the record and against the constitutional scheme envisaged by the founding fathers of the Constitution”, he contended.

Article 179(c) of the Constitution lays down that the Speaker may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of “all the then members of the Assembly”.

A prior notice of 14 days is required to be given before such a resolution is moved in the House. The Constitution Bench had ruled that “all the then members of the Assembly” would imply that a resolution for removal of the speaker should be taken up in the presence of all the elected members of the House and that this constitutional scheme would fail if the speaker was permitted to disqualify some members under the Tenth Schedule when a resolution for his removal was pending.

“There is no constitutional prohibition against the speaker deciding the disqualification proceedings after a notice for his removal is moved...the effect of the impugned observations (by the court) is to completely freeze the operation of Tenth Schedule once a notice for removal of the speaker/deputy speaker is given. This is a recipe for members who have incurred disqualification to stop disqualification proceedings from being initiated against them by merely issuing notice of removal of the speaker,” said the plea. The petition contended that the verdict has created a constitutional hiatus and given an escape route to “constitutional sinners” who commit defection and then are protected by the mere issuance of a notice for the removal of the speaker, which in turn has the effect of stalling the proceedings under the Tenth Schedule.

It further stated that the power of the speaker under the Tenth Schedule could not be nullified or stultified on an apprehension of abuse of his power on political considerations.
ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 20 July 2016, 20:00 IST)

Follow us on

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT