In a relief to the Centre and BJP, the Supreme Court on Friday restored the President’s Rule in Uttarakhand, within 24 hours of Harish Rawat of the Congress assuming office as the chief minister.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, after a 70-minute hearing from attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi and senior counsel Harish Salve for the Union of India and senior counsel Kapil Sibal for the Uttarakhand Speaker and Abhishek Singhvi for Mr Rawat, directed that the high court judgment quashing President’s Rule be kept in abeyance till April 27, when the matter will be taken up again. It indicated that the matter will have to be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
Though the Bench did not go into the merits of the appeal against the high court verdict, it observed “suppose there is horse-trading of MLAs, it will create a dent in democracy.”
When the AG pointed out that the copy of the judgment which was dictated in open court was not made available, the bench requested the high court to furnish the copy of the judgment to the parties concerned by April 26 and said the same shall be filed in the apex court on the same day. When AG said that the High Court had fixed April 29 for floor test to be taken by Mr Rawat, the bench said this aspect will be considered on April 27.
In view of the apex court’s order, Mr Rawat cannot function as chief minister, who was reinstated by the Uttarakhand high court on April 21. When the Congress apprehended that in the meanwhile President Rule will be revoked and the BJP government will be installed, the bench to strike a balance recorded an undertaking from the AG that the President Rule will not be revoked in the state. The nine disqualified MLAs had also filed a petition in the apex court challenging their disqualification which has changed the composition of the House.
Earlier the AG faulted the high court for quashing the President’s Rule and said Mr Rawat, who assumed office soon after the verdict, called a Cabinet meeting last night and reported on Friday morning that “11 new decisions were taken.”
The AG said the high court cannot go into the fact whether there was relevant/inadequate material for the President to impose President Rule. The Speaker did not accept division in the voting when money bill was taken up on March 18 and the Speaker declared the bill passed but did not send it to the governor for his assent.
There was a sting operation showing the chief minister openly saying that will get the MLAs. The President is not answerable to the governor and he can take a contrary view to that of the governor and his decision is final. When the proclamation was signed by the President, he was satisfied that there was enough material to show that something troublesome had happened in the state. The subjective satisfaction of the President that there is perceived corruption is not subject to judicial review and the court cannot interfere.
Mr Sibal denied that division was asked for by the 35 MLAs. He said staying the judgment will amount to granting final relief which cannot be done. Mr Singhvi said the chief minister will not take any policy decision till April 27 and that the judgment should not be stayed. The bench, however, told the counsel that interference by the court in a Presidential proclamation is a very serious matter and it has to be looked into by this court.
Mr Singhi said the singular reason for imposing President rule was the disqualification of nine MLAs and the Union of India’s failure to install a BJP government in office. The Bench will hear the case again on April 27 after the judgment copy is made available by the high court.
