Making sense of Arunachal Pradesh political crisis

The Union cabinet has recommended to withdraw President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh on the sidelines of meeting of Congress dissident Kalikho Pul, along with 19 rebel Congress MLAs, 11 from the BJP and two independent MLAs with governor JP Rajkhowa to stake claim for making a new government.

The speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in December, 2015 disqualified 14 Congress rebel MLAs on grounds of defection when the governor on his discretion summoned the vidhan sabha to remove the speaker. The disqualification was stayed by the high court giving a breather to the BJP, and now the Supreme Court has also given way for Centre to revoke President's Rule by looking into the details of defection and lifted the staus quo that it imposed a few days earlier.

The Congress' only hope is if the disqualification case goes in its favour or the rebels come back. There are still larger constitutional questions to be answered.

One, can governor summon the session of vidhan sabha without any recommendation from the council of ministers? Two, can governor also decide the course of the session by deciding which motion to bring on his dicretion? Three, use, or in fact misue of Article 356 by the Union to topple the state government.

Article 356 has been misused a lot post Emergency, starting with the Janta Party government in Centre dismissing Congress governments in states. Later also, different central governments have tried to stifle sate governments using this article.

During the Constituent Assembly debate,  BR Ambedkar expected the Union government not to misuse Article 356 and it to remain a dead letter, but the successive central governments have used it as a deadly weapon. Later, the Supreme Court in SR Bommai case gave certain guidelines pertaining to constitutional use of Article 356.

It has also been seen that many times the governor, also not going by the advice of state council of minister, tries to stifle the governance of state. In those circumstance he takes the cover of his discretionary powers which are not clearly defined in the Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court has said that a governor, while using his discretionary powers, has to go by the constitutional values without coming in contravention with other provisions of the Constitution. It is worth mentioning that those other provisions include to act on aid and advise of council of ministers of state.

However in case of Arunachal Pradesh, the governor claims that the state government lost majority and has tried to stifle the functioning of Vidhan Sabha and that is to be adjudicated.

Moreover, on one side, Union government showcases its intent to pursue cooperative federalism by scrapping Planning Commission and bringing Niti Aayog, curtailing the central-sponsored schemes, enhancing the states share in Centre's divisible pool of taxes from 32 per cent to 42 per cent thereby giving more flexibility in funds utilisation and in many speeches of our prime minister.

But on other hand, was the state government of Arunachal Pradesh given a fair chance to prove majority on the floor of the House?

So it depends on the good faith of the central government whether they want to make cooperative federalism a reality or mere rhetoric. In such a scenario, the onus lies with the judiciary. It has to ensure that state governments are not dismissed on the Centre's whims and the governor is not acting just as an agent of Centre but follows his constitutional duty.