New Delhi, Feb. 10: The Arunachal Pradesh governor told the Supreme Court today that he had exercised his discretionary powers to advance the Assembly session after he was assaulted by two ministers, as he apprehended manipulation of House strength by the Speaker and because a "chaotic situation" prevailed in the "sensitive border state".

Governor J.P. Rajkhowa had, on December 9 last year, advanced the Assembly session from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015, triggering a political imbroglio which led to imposition of President's rule in the frontier state. Rajkhowa's decision was later challenged in the court by Speaker Nabam Rebia.

Appearing for the governor, senior counsel T.R. Andhiarujina told the five-judge constitution bench of Justice J.S. Khehar, Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice P.C. Ghose and Justice N.V. Ramana that the Speaker was "hand-in-glove" with chief minister Nabam Tuki, who had lost majority in the House as 21 party legislators had written letters to Rajkhowa expressing lack of confidence in Tuki and Rebia, and the governor apprehended that the Speaker would manipulate the strength of the House to protect the chief minister.

The Congress has 47 members in the 60-member House.

"There is a constitutional obligation cast on him when somebody writes to him seeking removal of Speaker," the senior counsel said. Andhiarujina also said: "When the chief minister and council of ministers came to meet him at Raj Bhavan, two ministers physically assaulted the governor. This was reported by him to the President."

He asked: "Can he remain a silent spectator when he is abused, physically assaulted, when the Legislative Assembly is locked by the Speaker to prevent Assembly proceedings? Are we going to tolerate this from the Congress party which has lost majority? Can't the governor exercise his discretion to summon the Assembly when 21 MLAs made a representation for removal of the Speaker."

Claiming that the Speaker had attended a dinner with the chief minister and party legislators during the political crisis in the state, the senior counsel asked: "Is he not aligning with the party? Is it not unethical? Can the governor be condemned only for using his discretion to advance the House session?"

Justice Misra said: "If governor had apprehension that chief minister had lost majority, what should have been the constitutional scheme of things? Remove the Speaker or convene floor test for the chief minister? Constitution also says that the Speaker should be given a 14-day notice before his removal. If the 14 legislators (disqualified by Speaker) had a problem, they could have gone to the court. The court would have said something."

Andhiarujina argued that the governor can act on apprehension. "He has a right to play a role under the Constitution. The Speaker is hand-in-glove with the chief minister. The state is in a sensitive border region," he said.

The bench, however, said certain constitutional principles must be followed.

"He (governor) cannot act in a manner which is not constitutionally permissible," it said.

The senior counsel said there was no prohibition in the Constitution that barred the governor from exercising his discretion in times of crisis like the present one. "All these are undefined discretion, which may be implicit and cannot be questioned. You may say that the exercise of discretion is wrong but you cannot attribute motive or malafide intention or say it was capricious," he said.

Responding to queries from the bench on whether the governor can exercise his discretion on mere apprehension as it amounts to restricting the powers of the Speaker granted under the anti-defection law, the senior counsel said: "His apprehension proved correct when the Speaker disqualified 14 rebel Congress MLAs."

Andhiarujina added that the governor had kept the President informed of all the developments.