Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 133 (GAU)

Pani Taram v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2016-02-25

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. Issue notice, returnable on 03.03.2016. Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents. Extra copies during the course of the day. On the next date, learned Advocate General shall produce the relevant record relating to summoning of the Sixth Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh for its Seventh Session at 10.00 a.m. on 25th and 27th of February, 2016 in the Assembly’s Chamber at Naharlagun. Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel prays for stay of the effect and operation of the order of the Governor dated 23.02.2016 whereby, the Assembly has been summoned to meet on 25th and 27th February, 2016. Referring to the provisions contained in Rules 3 and 3A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Rules), he submits that ordinarily atleast 30 days notice is required to be given to each member of the House before commencement of the session. However, as per the proviso, if the session is called at short notice or emergently, the summons may not be issued to each member separately, but announcement of the date and venue of the session should be notified in the Gazette, All India Radio and the members should be informed by WT message. These rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Article 208 of the Constitution of India, which provide for rules of procedure for regulating the procedure and conduct of business of the Legislature of a State. Petitioner, who is a sitting MLA of Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, has stated that he has neither received any WT message nor come across any publication in the State Gazette nor any announcement in the All India Radio about summoning of Assembly. In case of such violation, it is submitted the proceedings of the Assembly would stand vitiated and interference by the Court would be justified. He also submits that the entire issue needs to be examined in the context of what is happening in the State since the last couple of months where there has been constant breach of constitutional norms and principles. He also submits that the entire issue needs to be examined in the context of what is happening in the State since the last couple of months where there has been constant breach of constitutional norms and principles. On a query by the Court as to what extent interference of the Court would be justified in matters of procedure of the Legislature or rather breach of it, Mr. Goswami submits that if such violations strike at the core democratic principles, interference by the Courts would be justified. He, however, makes an alternative submission that since under Article 176 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is mandated to address the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of the first session of each year, therefore, the Governor may address the Assembly but in view of violation of Rules 3 and 3A of the Rules, further proceeding should not be allowed as it has the potential to irreversibly change the composition of the House. Submissions made by Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner have been opposed by learned Advocate General, who has placed before the Court a copy of notice dated 25.02.2016, issued by the President of Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee and Chief Whip of Arunachal Pradesh Congress Legislature Party whereby, members belonging to Congress Legislature Party have been asked not to attend the Assembly summoned by the Governor vide order dated 23.02.2016. He submits that this would go to show that the members of the House have notice of the summoning of Assembly which is the basic purpose of Rules 3 and 3A of the Rules. He has also placed before the Court a copy of letter dated 23.02.2016, issued by the Joint Secretary (Parliamentary Affairs), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh addressed to the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Arunachal Pradesh informing the latter that Governor of Arunachal Pradesh has summoned the Seventh Session of the Sixth Legislative Assembly on 25th and 27th February, 2016 and that since the Assembly has been summoned at short notice, all members should be informed through News Paper, All India Radio/WT Messages/WhatsApp/E-mail/Fax/Calls and SMS, etc. He would, therefore, submit that there is sufficient compliance to the procedural requirements of Rules 3 and 3A. He would, therefore, submit that there is sufficient compliance to the procedural requirements of Rules 3 and 3A. Learned Advocate General has also referred to provision of Article 212 of the Constitution and submits that validity of any proceeding in the Legislature of a State cannot be called into question on the ground of alleged irregularity of procedure. Mr. SS Dey, learned Senior Counsel submitted that he has instruction to appear on behalf of Sri K Pul, a member of the Assembly and the present Chief Minister of the State and sought leave to make submission. Though Mr. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel vehemently objected to making of submission by Mr. SS Dey, learned Senior Counsel on the ground that his client is not a necessary party to the proceeding and infact, has not been made party, therefore, no right of audience should be extended to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K Pul. However, considering the subject matter of the lis before the Court, Court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice, if learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the member of the Assembly and the present Chief Minister of the State is heard. Mr. Dey, learned Senior Counsel in his short submission has submitted that all members of the House are fully aware of and have notice of the summoning of the Assembly and that petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that it would not be proper for the Court to stay the operation of the order dated 23.02.2016 of the Governor summoning the Sixth Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh for its Seventh Session on 25th and 27th February, 2016. However, the proceedings pursuant to such summoning would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. List on 03.03.2016 at 10.30 a.m.