LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker and Others

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 of 2016)Decided 13 Jul 2016
Civil Appeal Nos. 6203-6204 of 2016
Justice J.S. Khehar · Justice Dipak Misra · Justice Madan B. Lokur · Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose · Justice N.V. Ramana

Background

A political crisis erupted in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly in late 2015 amid dissidence within the ruling Congress party. Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa, acting on 9.12.2015 without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, preponed the Assembly's 6th session from 14.1.2016 to 16.12.2015 and issued a message directing how proceedings should be conducted, including a resolution to remove the Speaker. Relying on that message, the Deputy Speaker then purported to set aside the Speaker's own order of 15.12.2015 disqualifying fourteen MLAs (including the Deputy Speaker himself) under the anti-defection law. The Gauhati High Court had upheld these actions, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Constitution Bench held that the Governor's power to summon, prorogue or address the House, and to decide the timing and agenda of sessions, is an executive function that must ordinarily be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163: the Governor's own discretion is confined only to situations expressly provided for by the Constitution, and political/factional disputes within a ruling party are not such a situation. Because the Governor's order preponing the session and his message directing the House's business were issued without such aid and advice, both were held unconstitutional and quashed, and all steps taken by the Assembly pursuant to them (including the resolution process to remove the Speaker) were set aside as a consequence. On the Tenth Schedule question, the Court held that the Deputy Speaker had no authority to set aside the Speaker's disqualification order: a Speaker acting under the Tenth Schedule functions as a tribunal whose decision can only be reviewed by a constitutional court, and the Deputy Speaker could not sit in judgment over it, especially since he himself was one of the disqualified members and stood to benefit from annulling it. The appeals were allowed, the Gauhati High Court's judgment was set aside, and the status quo as it existed on 15.12.2015 was ordered to be restored.

Lesson Learnt

A Governor is a constitutional, not a political, actor, except in the narrow situations the Constitution itself carves out for discretion, a Governor must act on the advice of the elected government and cannot unilaterally intervene in a ruling party's internal disputes or dictate how a Legislative Assembly conducts its business; and a Speaker's rulings under the anti-defection law cannot be overturned by a Deputy Speaker, only by a court.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case