Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly

The story

In late 2015, Arunachal Pradesh's Congress government under Chief Minister Nabam Tuki faced an internal revolt. Rebel MLAs, backed implicitly by the Governor, sought to unseat the Speaker and effectively topple the ministry from within. Governor J.P. Rajkhowa, acting without consulting the Council of Ministers, advanced the Assembly session and added an item for the Speaker's removal to the agenda—a move critics called a backdoor coup. The Speaker responded by disqualifying the rebel MLAs under the anti-defection law, deepening the crisis. As chaos unfolded, President's Rule was imposed, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. A five-judge Constitution Bench delivered a sharp rebuke: the Governor, it held, is not a political umpire and cannot summon or alter Assembly business to favour one faction over another—he must act on ministerial advice. It also ruled the Speaker could not decide disqualifications while his own removal was pending. The Court restored Tuki's government to power, reaffirming that unelected constitutional offices—the Governor and, temporarily, the Speaker—cannot be wielded as tools in political power struggles between elected representatives.

The facts

In late 2015, a political crisis erupted in Arunachal Pradesh when Governor J.P. Rajkhowa advanced the Assembly session and altered its agenda to include a resolution for removal of the Speaker, without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister Nabam Tuki's Council of Ministers, amid a split in the ruling Congress party led by rebel MLA Kalikho Pul. The Speaker, in turn, disqualified several rebel MLAs under the Tenth Schedule. The rival factions approached the courts, and the President's Rule imposed in the state was also challenged.

The question before the court

Whether the Governor can exercise powers under Article 174 (summoning, proroguing, or advancing an Assembly session and setting its agenda) without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and whether a Speaker facing a resolution for his own removal can simultaneously decide disqualification petitions against MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.

The holding

A Constitution Bench held that the Governor's discretion under Article 174 is not unfettered; except in situations expressly provided by the Constitution, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot use his power to summon, prorogue or advance a session, or to fix its agenda, to intervene in intra-party or floor-related disputes. The Court further held that under the proviso to Article 179(c), a Speaker cannot adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule while a resolution for his own removal is pending, since he stands disqualified from acting in that capacity during that period. Consequently, the Governor's actions advancing the session and altering its agenda, and the Speaker's subsequent disqualification of MLAs, were held constitutionally impermissible, and status quo ante (restoring the Nabam Tuki government) was ordered.

The principle it stands for

The Governor's discretionary powers under Article 163 are extremely limited and must ordinarily be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; the Governor cannot use Article 174 powers to influence or resolve internal legislative party disputes or floor tests. A Speaker facing a motion for his own removal is barred by the proviso to Article 179(c) from exercising any powers, including deciding disqualification petitions, until that motion is resolved.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 174Sessions of the State Legislature, prorogation and dissolutionlimited — Governor's power to summon/prorogue/advance session is not discretionary and must follow ministerial advice.
• Art. 163Council of Ministers to aid and advise Governorinterpreted — Reaffirmed Governor's discretion is limited to situations expressly provided by the Constitution.
• Art. 179Vacation and resignation of, and removal from, the offices of Speaker and Deputy Speakerinterpreted — Speaker barred from exercising powers, including deciding disqualification, while a removal motion against him is pending.