Nabam Rebia Judgement (2016)

The Nabam Rebia case, formally known as Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix vs Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Others (2016), is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India concerning the constitutional interpretation of the powers of a Speaker of a Legislative Assembly during the process of disqualification of members under the Anti-Defection Law. This judgment has significant implications for parliamentary democracy, especially in the context of the stability of state governments.

Background of the Case:

In December 2015, a political crisis erupted in Arunachal Pradesh. At that time, the Congress party was in power under Chief Minister Nabam Tuki, and Nabam Rebia was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. A group of Congress MLAs, along with the opposition BJP, rebelled against the government, alleging misgovernance. These rebel MLAs sought to remove the Speaker, Nabam Rebia, and bring down the government.

The Deputy Speaker of the Assembly responded to a notice by these MLAs to convene a session of the Assembly. He claimed authority to act in place of the Speaker, invoking Article 179(c) of the Constitution, which allows for the removal of a Speaker. During the session, the Deputy Speaker conducted a vote in which the Speaker was “removed” and a resolution was passed against the Chief Minister.

Nabam Rebia approached the Guwahati High Court, challenging the Deputy Speaker’s actions. The High Court upheld the actions of the Deputy Speaker, prompting Rebia to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether a Speaker can disqualify MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law (10th Schedule) while a motion for his own removal is pending.
2. Whether the Deputy Speaker had the authority to conduct proceedings to remove the Speaker in the absence of the Speaker.
3. Whether the Governor’s actions in advancing the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister were constitutionally valid.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

• Bias of the Speaker:

The petitioners contended that allowing the Speaker to disqualify MLAs under the Anti-Defection Law when a motion for his removal was pending would lead to a conflict of interest. Since the Speaker’s impartiality could be compromised, it would be unfair to let him preside over disqualification proceedings during such a time.

• Governor’s Overreach:

It was argued that the Governor had acted unconstitutionally by advancing the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister. According to Article 163, the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations.

• illegal Removal Process:

The petitioners claimed that the Deputy Speaker had no authority to preside over the session to remove the Speaker, as Article 179(c) specifies that the Assembly itself must remove the Speaker through a legitimate process.

Arguments by the Respondents

• Validity of the Deputy Speaker’s Actions:

The respondents argued that since the Speaker could not preside over proceedings relating to his own removal, the Deputy Speaker was empowered to act on behalf of the Assembly under Article 180.

• Speaker’s Disqualification Powers:

The respondents maintained that the Speaker had the exclusive authority to disqualify members under the 10th Schedule, and his powers could not be curtailed by a pending motion for removal.

• Governor’s Discretion:

It was contended that the Governor, under Article 174, has the discretion to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the Assembly. The advancing of the Assembly session was justified in the interest of preventing a constitutional crisis.

Judgment by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on July 13, 2016, ruled in favor of Nabam Rebia and set aside the decisions of the Deputy Speaker and the Governor. The key findings of the judgment were:

• Speaker’s Powers during Pending Motion for Removal:

The Court held that when a motion for removal of the Speaker is pending, the Speaker cannot exercise powers under the 10th Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). This is because allowing the Speaker to disqualify members while facing removal creates a conflict of interest and undermines the principles of natural justice.

• Governor’s Actions Unconstitutional:

The Court ruled that the Governor’s decision to advance the Assembly session without the advice of the Chief Minister was unconstitutional. The Governor’s role is largely ceremonial, and he must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in such matters.

• Restoration of Status Quo:

The Court restored the status quo as it existed before the Governor’s actions, effectively reinstating Nabam Tuki as Chief Minister and Nabam Rebia as Speaker. It underscored the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures and maintaining the balance of power between the Governor, the Legislature, and the Executive.

Significance of the Judgment

• Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy:

The judgment reaffirmed the principle that the Speaker must act impartially and cannot misuse his powers during politically sensitive situations. It also protected the democratic process by ensuring that the Governor does not overreach his constitutional role.

• Clarification on Governor’s Powers:

By ruling that the Governor cannot act without the advice of the Council of Ministers, except in situations explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the Court reinforced the idea that the Governor’s discretion is limited.

• Impact on Future Political Crises:

The judgment set a precedent for handling political crises involving the disqualification of members and the removal of Speakers. It emphasized the need for fairness and impartiality in such processes to protect the stability of governments.