JUDGMENT :

[1] The basic issue involved in these two writ petitions is as to whether the Governor of a State is to act only with the aid and advice of the council of Ministers in all circumstances or the Governor is empowered being the custodian of an executive and other powers under various Articles of the Constitution of India is entitled to exercise independent/discretionary powers. The other issues including the right of the Governor to address and send messages to the Legislative Assembly was legally permissible in the fact situation involved in this case. The concerned Articles of the Constitution of India in this regard are Article 174 and Article 175. The other issues involved are incidental to the above issues.

[2] The background facts involved in this proceeding have seen set out in the interim order passed on 17.12.2015, which reads as follows:-

“BACKDROP

3. The party wise composition of the Arunachal Pradesh State legislature in the 60 member House is Congress-47, BJP-11 and Independent-2.

4. The sitting of the Sixth Sessions of the State Assembly was notified for 14.1.2016 by the Governor on 3.11.2015 and at that stage, the 16 Congress MLAs gave notice for removal of the Deputy Speaker. Next the 11 BJP MLAs issued notice for removal of the Speaker and this move against the petitioner was supported by 2 Independent MLAs.

5. The 13 MLAs in the opposition requested the Governor for pre-poning the assembly session for considering the Speaker's removal.

6. The request of the opposition MLAs was acted upon by the Governor and on 9.12.2015, the Governor issued the notification for pre-scheduling the assembly session to 16th December, 2015 from 14th January, 2016, to facilitate the House to consider removal of the speaker. Simultaneously a second notification was issued on the same day whereby the Governor issued a message fixing the resolution of the Speaker's removal, as the first agenda item in the pre-poned assembly session.

7. At that stage the Congress party whip applied for disqualification of respondent Nos. 2 to 15 under the anti-defection Rules and the State Cabinet passed a resolution on 14.12.2015 to the effect that the Governor's decision to prepone the assembly session is contrary to constitutional provisions and the Rules of Procedure. On the same day, the Speaker also wrote to the Governor for allowing the House to function as per its originally notified schedule.

8. On 15th December, 2015, the respondent Nos. 2-15 were declared to be disqualified and consequently those 16 seats were notified to be vacant. But the Deputy Speaker issued an order quashing the Speaker's order, on disqualification of the 16 MLAs.

9. the preponed session of the assembly was held at a community hall (not in the assembly house) where Deputy Speaker conducted the proceeding and as per the first agenda item notified by the Governor, a resolution for removal of the Speaker was adopted and the Speaker's office was declared to be vacant.

10. The opposition group then proposed for a test of strength on the floor of the House and the Deputy Speaker scheduled the motion for consideration of the House for today ie. 17th December, 2015 and the assembly is scheduled to consider whether the Chief Minister Nabam Tuki was enjoying the majority support or whether the vote of confidence of the House is in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 Kalikho Pul.”

[3] The basic thrust of the petitioners’ arguments set out in both the writ petitions filed by the Speaker of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly [WP(C) No. 7745/2015) and two Members of the Legislative Assembly [WP(C) No. 7998/2015) respectively is that the Governor exceeded in his jurisdiction and power to prepone the State Assembly session taking recourse to the provisions of Article 174 of the Constitution of India and so also in issuing the messages under Article 175(2) of the Constitution of