New Delhi: Justice Dipak Misra, who today delivered a separate but concurring judgment on the Arunachal Pradesh crisis, has dealt in detail with the precarious situation in which an Assembly Speaker can land into, saying if there is a resolution to remove him, he should stand the test and then proceed.
Justice Misra, while dealing with Article 179(C) of the Constitution which deals with the issue of removal of Speaker, said the impartiality of the Speaker should also appear to be perceptible.
The deliberation assumes importance in view of the fact that Arunachal Speaker Nabam Rebia, a Congressman, faced opposition from rebels MLAs of his own party who had joined hands with BJP MLAs for removing him.
The senior judge said the Speaker’s conduct should not only be impartial but such impartiality should be perceptible and “it must reflect the trust reposed in him under the Constitution”.
“When there is an expression of intention to move the resolution to remove him, it is requisite that he should stand the test and then proceed. That is the intendment of Article 179(c) and the said interpretation serves the litmus test of sustained democracy founded on Rule of Law…
“It would be an anathema to the concept of constitutional adjudication, if the Speaker is allowed to initiate proceeding under the Tenth Schedule (disqualification on ground of defection) of the Constitution after intention to remove him from his office is moved,” Justice Dipak Misra said while interpreting Article 179(c) of Constitution in the context of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution.
Article 179(c) of Constitution says that a member holding office as Speaker or Deputy Speaker of an Assembly may be removed from his office by a resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all the then members of the Assembly.
However, a 14-day advanced notice must be given for such resolution.