Nabam Rebia Vs. Deputy Speaker - An Analysis

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:38:21.572+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:07:03.887Z

NABAM REBIA VS. DEPUTY SPEAKER: AN

ANALYSIS

Chiranjeev Dubey, O. P. Jindal Global University The seminal Nabam Rebia case 1had a very eminent judgement which revolved around significant constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers between the Speaker, Governor, and the wider brethren of legislative assembly. The judgement provided by Supreme Court in this case led to be impactful on a magnitude of political case. Analysing this case was majorly entailing the bridge between the legal intricacies and the modern-day political issues faced by India. Issues The case was based on two crucial issues. To begin with the question was around the Governor’s powers under article 174, which provides the power to summon, prorogue or dissolve a state legislative assembly, whether their powers can be exercised unilaterally i. e. without advice of Council of Ministers.

Furthermore, the case was also built on the speaker’s disqualification powers i. e. whether Speaker of the Assembly could disqualify members through powers provided by Tenth Schedule which is regarding anti defection laws while a motion for the removal of Speaker is pending under Article 179(c) of the Indian Constitution. Rules Under Article 174, the Governor has the right to summon, prorogue, or dissolve the assembly; however, that power is subject to advice from the Council of Ministers, thereby making the otherwise unilateral powers of the Governor somewhat ineffective. Article 163 clarifies that the discretion of the Governor is not altogether unfettered and is generally subject to the advice given by ministers.

Article 179(c) does not permit the Speaker who has a motion for his removal to enjoy powers that the Speaker can exercise under the Tenth Schedule, about anti-defection laws, whereby if there is a vacancy in the post of the Speaker, the Speaker himself would not act with conflict of interest, and the procedure against him would not be tainted.

1 Nabam Rebia V/s Deputy Speaker (2016).

Analysis

This case originates from the political instability in Arunachal Pradesh where a group of MLAs sought to dislodge the Chief Minister and the Speaker. Adding to this the Governor summoned the assembly on the advice of the rebelling MLAs without consulting with the Council of Ministers. This resulted in the Speaker disqualifying the rebelling MLAs while their own motion of removal had been submitted. In such a constitutional dilemma the 5-judge bench in the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Governor does not possess such independent, irrepressible powers to summon or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly without the advice of the Council of Ministers. After referring to Article 163 the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised that Governor’s discretion is not absolute and requires the advice of elected officials before exercising.

This interpretation stems from the balance of powers between the executive and the Governor’s majorly conventional role. In addition to this the Supreme Court also ruled that a Speaker or Deputy Speaker facing a motion of removal, or no confidence motion cannot exercise powers under the Tenth Schedule to disqualify MLAs. The rationale behind such judgement was that if a speaker could disqualify members while their own motion of removal is yet pending then it would result in a conflict of interest. This would result in unfair and biased disqualifications thus the Court sought to prevent the Speaker from misusing disqualification powers to safeguard their own position. 2 The Nabam Rebia judgement 3has acted as a precedent for multiple eminent cases. During the

2022 Maharashtra political crisis, Nabam Rebia judgement was a cornerstone. When Eknath

Shinde led a rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray within their own Shiv Sena party, the Deputy Speaker i.e. Narhari Zirwal had sought to disqualify these rebel MLAs. Shinde’s rebelling MLAs as a quick response filed a no confidence motion keeping in mind the Nabam Rebia judgement. This would have given them grounds to argue that the Deputy Speaker can no longer proceed with disqualification due to an existing motion of removal again them. 2 Supreme Court Observer, “President’s Rule: Judgment Summary - Supreme Court Observer” (Supreme Court Observer, July 18, 2022)

3 Nabam Rebia V/s Deputy Speaker (2016).

The Hon’ble Apex court did side with the rebels during its interim order staying the disqualification proceedings and directing a floor test. A floor test is a constitutional mechanism used to determine if the executive, specifically the Chief Minister appointed by the Governor of a state, has the support and confidence of the legislative assembly. The Chief Minister can be asked to prove their majority on the floor of the assembly. This decision allowed the rebelling MLAs to participate in this directed floor test which would ultimately lead to fall of Thackeray Government. This resulted in a new government led by Shinde which was sworn in along with support of the BJP. This was further extended in case of Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra illustrating how the ruling in Nabam Rebia had a direct impact on political chaos in Maharashtra.

4 Another case would be the Karnataka Legislative Crisis which took place in 2019. During this crisis a faction of Congress and Janata Dal (Secular) MLAs resigned from their respective parties threatening the entire stability of the coalition government. The Speaker i. e. K. R. Ramesh Kumar initially delayed accepting their resignations and even initiated the disqualification of the rebelling legislators under the Tenth Schedule. The rebelling MLAs at that time cited Nabam Rebia ruling and stated that their disqualification cannot be furthered since there are procedural delays and they also challenged Speaker’s authority. This case demonstrated the fundamental influence that the Nabam Rebia case had on decisions rendered in subsequent years.

The case highlighted how the Nabam Rebia ruling affected Speakers' powers to enforce anti-defection laws, creating further complications in handling resignation and disqualification in state assemblies5 The Nabam Rebia decision, while ensuring the fairness of disqualification proceedings and its precedential value, has faced criticism for its potential capacity to be misused. One fear that always has been prevalent is the MLAs facing disqualification just delay the process by filing a no-confidence motion against the Speaker. It keeps the disqualification in abeyance, and by that time, they will find other options. That was precisely the case with the Maharashtra crisis, wherein the judgment was misused by the rebel MLAs to delay their disqualification to such an extent that they managed to pull down the government.

4 Chowdhury S and Law L, “Live Law” Live Law (May 11, 2023) 5 Arakal, R. A. (2019, July 28). The Karnataka crisis timeline: How have events unfolded so far. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress. com/article/cities/bangalore/karnataka-political-crisis-legislative-assembly-dramafull-timeline-vidhana-soudha-5845467/ This order, in fact, restricts the discretionary powers of Governors. While the latter are supposed to act in a non-partisan manner in purely ornamental roles, this judgment also circumscribes their powers of intervention in political crises. In states like Maharashtra, where Governors have been at the receiving end for acting upon advice that smacks of political motivation, the Nabam Rebia ruling reinforces the role of the Council of Ministers in summoning and proroguing the Assembly.

While this decision in Nabam Rebia aimed at procedural fairness, the same fails to take into consideration the dynamic nature of Indian state politics and also the often-volatile nature thereof. This decision protects against arbitrary action by the Speaker but leaves a gaping loophole for legislators to bring down governments which destabilises governments and defeats the basic aim of anti-defection law meant for stabilising regimes from falling for opportunistic defections. The decision of the Court to refer the judgment to a larger bench is a welcome step since the latter can now ameliorate the palpable and undesirable effects of the said ruling. A balanced approach, to protect the integrity of disqualification proceedings while preventing legislative tactics that can defeat the democratic process, calls for judicial nuances.

Till then, Nabam Rebia remains a double-edged sword that protects fairness in the legislature from political exploitation. 6 Conclusion The judgment in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker 7has attained seminal importance in Indian constitutional jurisprudence as far as the balance between the Speaker, the Governor, and the legislature is concerned. Its application to recent political crises-most recently in Maharashtraexposes both strengths and weaknesses. While the judgment ensures procedural integrity, at the same time it opens up possibilities for political manipulation; therefore, in effect, the judgment opens the door for revision by the larger bench of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the coming review by the Court may provide an important opportunity to fix the flaws and ensure 6 Bhatia G, “Guest Post: The Speaker and the Anti-Defection Law – A a Critique of Nabam Rebia’s Interpretation of Article 179(c)” (Constitutional Law and Philosophy, May 8, 2023)

7 Nabam Rebia V/s Deputy Speaker (2016).

that the anti-defection law does indeed work as intended to protect democratic processes from further exploitation.