Floor Test to Decide Arunachal’s Fate, Says Senior Advocate Soli Sorabjee
Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee says the real test after Supreme Court’s Arunachal Pradesh verdict lies with the floor of the house.
The Supreme Court has reinstated the Congress led government in Arunachal Pradesh in a verdict that also opines on the role of governors and their constitutional powers. BloombergQuint spoke to senior advocate and former attorney general (AG) of India, Soli Sorabjee, for his views on the judgment and its implications. Here are edited excerpts of that conversation.
Let me begin by quoting an extract from the judgment, “It is easy to forget that the governor is a constitutional or formal head – nevertheless, like everybody else, he has to play the game in accordance with the rules.” What principle has the Supreme Court set through this judgment?
The Supreme Court has declared that the governor cannot take decisions against constitutional provisions. The constitutional law prevails. The governor in changing the dates of the assembly acted on his own and bypassed the Council (of ministers) which was illegal.
What will be the legal and political impact of this order as the court has come down hard on Governor Jyoti Prakash Rajkhowa for concluding that he was not bound by the advice of the council of ministers?
The question remains that the previous government has been restored by the Supreme Court judgment and if the majority is questioned by a vote of confidence then the same will have to be established on the floor of the house. A floor test will have to be done to determine if the government has majority.
The Supreme Court has given judgments on matters related to President Rule in two states - first Uttarakhand and then Arunachal Pradesh. The third issue that ruffled many feathers was the Collegium system vs NJAC. These are three Court verdicts against the present government. Do you believe this is an escalation of the turf war between the executive and the judiciary?
There are judgments which go in favour of a government and some that don’t. Supreme Court judgments are not a personal indictment of any person.
