send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Political crisis has been triggered between ruling party and Governor of state. This dispute started on the issue of exercise of of power by the Governor. Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa sent a one-page message to the state Legislative Assembly. In his message Governor forward the Assembly’s Winter Session to December 16 from the scheduled date of January 14, the Governor ordered that a resolution seeking the removal of Speaker Nabam Rebia “shall be the first item on the agenda of the House”. This triggered a controversy that how a message sent by Governor is legal or not. Governor Powers are defined both by constitution and judiciary. In Constitution:
The message, sent under Article 175 (2) of the Constitution, essentially issued terse instructions to the House on how to function. Article 175 does empower the Governor to address and send messages to the House or Houses (in states with a Legislative Council). The Governor can send messages “whether with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise”, and the House “shall with all convenient dispatch consider any matter required by the message to be taken into consideration”.
In Judiciary:
Supreme Court in many cases held that the power of the Governor is not absolute. He is bound to act on the advice of the state cabinet. In its landmark judgment in Union of India vs Valluri Basavaiah Chaudhary and Others, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 1979 held that the Governor was a “constitutional head of the State Executive, and has, therefore, to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers”. The Governor has a right of addressing and sending messages… under Arts. 175 and 176, and of summoning, proroguing and dissolving under Article 174. In all these matters the Governor as the constitutional head of the State is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.The right of the Governor to send messages… under Article 175(2), with respect to a Bill then pending in the legislature or otherwise, normally arises when the Governor withholds his assent to a Bill under Article 200, or when the President, for whose consideration a Bill is reserved for assent, returns the Bill… As already stated, a ‘Bill’ is something quite different from a ‘resolution of the House’ and, therefore, there is no question of the Governor sending any message under Article 175(2) with regard to a resolution pending before the House or Houses of the Legislature.”
Gauhati high court observed that the power of the Governor to send message to the House was with respect to a pending bill in the House and this power under Article 175(2) cannot be utilized to send message on a pending resolution for removal of the Speaker and "hence this appears to be an act of exceeding the jurisdiction."
More recently, in the context of the tussle between the then UPA-appointed Governor of Gujarat Kamla Beniwal and then Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s government over the appointment of Justice R A Mehta as Lokayukta, the SC held that the Governor enjoys complete immunity under Article 361(1) of the Constitution, and his actions can’t be challenged since he acts only upon the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Analysis
By: Vishal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources