There are clearly laid out procedures to settle disputes over House majority and constitutional heads ought to stay away from political manipulations.
- While devolution of an increased share of Central taxes and removal of overbearing institutions like the Planning Commission were consistent with the cooperative federalism.
- President’s rule goes against the grain of cooperative federalism.
- The pattern involves dissidence within the ruling party, the opposition joining hands with the rebels, confusion over the likelihood of a floor test, and the Governor intervening in a partisan manner.
- Undoubtedly, there is a constitutional impasse because six months have elapsed since the last time the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly met.
- That itself is a valid ground for Central rule.
- But events were manipulated in such a way that the divided legislature never got an opportunity to meet and test the government’s majority.
- Gauhati High Court ruled that the Governor was justified in advancing the session by acting on his own discretion if he had reason to believe that the Chief Minister and the Speaker were stalling a particular motion.
- Same constitutional question is now before the supreme court constitutional bench.