Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly
Rule established
Article 163(1) confers no general discretionary power on the Governor. His discretion is confined to functions which the Constitution expressly requires him to exercise in his discretion, or which arise by necessary implication. Summoning, proroguing and dissolving the House under Article 174 must be done on ministerial advice.
Facts
- A split occurred in the party in power in the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, with a group of members ranging themselves against the Chief Minister.
- The Speaker initiated disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule against the dissident members.
- The Governor, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, issued an order advancing the session of the Assembly by about a month.
- He also sent a message under Art.175(2) fixing the agenda, directing that a resolution for the removal of the Speaker be taken up as the first item, and giving directions as to who should preside.
- In the sitting that followed, the Speaker was purportedly removed, his disqualification orders were set aside, and steps were taken leading to the installation of a new government.
- The Governor relied on Art.163(2), under which the question whether a matter falls within his discretion is for him and is not to be called in question.
Issue
- Whether the Governor may summon, prorogue or advance a session, and issue directions under Art.175(2), in his own discretion and without ministerial advice; and whether Art.163(2) places such action beyond judicial scrutiny.
Held
- The Governor's actions were unconstitutional and the Court restored the status quo ante, reviving the position as it stood before the impugned order. Article 163(1) is not a source of general discretion: the words "except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion" confine discretion to what the Constitution expressly provides, or what arises by necessary implication. Summoning, proroguing and dissolving under Art.174 are not among those functions and must be done on advice. The Governor is not an independent political actor: he has no authority to enter upon the internal proceedings of the House, to determine its agenda, to intervene in disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker, or to take sides in a dispute within a political party. Article 163(2) protects a decision as to whether an admitted head of discretion applies; it does not immunise action taken in a field where no discretion exists at all.
Ratio Decidendi
Discretion in the hands of a functionary who is appointed by the Union and holds office during its pleasure is an exception in a system of responsible government, and an exception must be construed strictly. Reading Art.163(1) as a general grant would invert the relationship between the Governor and an elected Ministry, and would make Art.163(2) a device by which the Governor could confer jurisdiction on himself by merely asserting it. The separation between the executive and the legislature likewise forbids the Governor from directing the House's business, since the House is master of its own proceedings.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading modern authority narrowing Art.163. Cite it against any argument that the Governor's own opinion as to his discretion is conclusive.
- State the test precisely: discretion exists only where the Constitution expressly so provides or where it arises by necessary implication.
- Use for the specific holding that Art.174 must be exercised on advice, and that a message under Art.175(2) cannot be used to control the House's agenda.
- Read with Samsher Singh v State of Punjab 1974, which established that the Governor is a constitutional head, since this case supplies the limit on the exception that case recognised.
- Read with Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India 2006 on the Governor's report, and with S R Bommai v Union of India 1994 on the floor test, to build a full answer on the Governor's role in a political crisis.
- Remember the express heads of discretion that survive: reservation of a Bill under Art.200, the report under Art.356, functions under Art.239(2), and special responsibilities such as those under Art.371A and the Sixth Schedule.
- The restoration of status quo ante is itself an examinable point, showing that the remedy for unconstitutional executive interference can be restitutionary.
Source
Source: (2016) 8 SCC 1; Constitution Bench of five Judges; judgment dated 13 July 2016; the leading modern authority narrowing the Governor's discretion; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.