The no-confidence motion was passed against the Congress-led Nabam Tuki government in Arunachal Pradesh Assembly when the Deputy Speaker was in charge of the House.
The Supreme Court today said there was nothing wrong if a no-confidence motion is passed against the Congress-led Nabam Tuki government in Arunachal Pradesh Assembly when the Deputy Speaker was in charge of the House proceedings after removal of the Speaker.
"If Deputy Speaker assumes office of the Speaker and is in charge of the House after the Speaker is removed and a group of MLAs stand up and move no-confidence motion against the government (and) it is passed, then what is wrong? I do not think there is anything wrong," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice JS Khehar said.
"Prima facie, you (bench) may be right," senior advocate and jurist FS Nariman, appearing for Congress leaders, said.
The bench, which also comprised Justices Dipak Misra, MB Lokur, PC Ghose and NV Ramana, also raised some procedural issues like whether such business (no confidence motion) has to be there in the list of business of the Assembly.
During the hearing, senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for some rebel Congress legislators, reiterated his stand that the Governor was not barred from summoning the Assembly session on his own, without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his council of ministers.
"The only precondition is that there has to be some business to be transacted by the House and the Governor is not barred," he said.
Once the House is in session, the Governor has no role to decide as to what business it should transact as it is then the duty of the assembly, the senior lawyer said.
"The general rule is that the constitutional powers should be construed liberally," he said, adding that the Governor has discretionary powers under special circumstances.
The court, which is hearing a batch of pleas on certain powers of the Governor under the Constitution, would resume hearing tomorrow.
Earlier, the court had questioned Arunachal Pradesh Governor JP Rajkhowa's decision to advance the Assembly session to December last year from this January, asking what difference would it have made if the sitting was held as originally scheduled.