The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued with President’s Rule in Uttarakhand while keeping the option open for ordering a floor test anytime before it decides to pronounce the final verdict, which it said would come before May 13, the last working day before the court closes for the summer break.
Extending its order passed on April 22 by which it had temporarily stayed the April 21 decision of the Uttarakhand High Court setting aside Presidential Proclamation, the apex Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said it will hear the two sides, the Centre on the one hand and former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat on the other hand, on Tuesday and decide on the validity of President’s Rule before the start of summer vacation.
This would mean that the floor test fixed by the HC on April 29 will not be held.
At the start of the hearing, the Bench shared a set of seven questions that it thought were relevant to decide the case. The issues pertained to the extent of power of the Governor to intervene in proceedings of the Assembly, power of President to take note of decisions taken by the Speaker or even instances which form part of proceedings of the Assembly, and finally whether delay to hold a floor test particularly when there are complaints of instances of horse-trading, can be a ground to perceive that democracy has been destabilised in the State, triggering imposition of President’s Rule.
A-G Mukul Rohatgi, who opened arguments for the Centre, said the grounds urged by the Court were “broad” and instead presented a set of 14 issues to be considered in view of the happenings in Uttarakhand Assembly.
Rohatgi said the stage at which the Appropriation Bill, which is a Money Bill, fails to be passed or is passed in a manner that is illegal this itself amounts to the Government falling.
This occurred on March 18, when the Money Bill was passed in the Assembly despite 35 MlAs demanding division of votes. The Speaker failed to grant division and passed the Bill in an illegal manner.
The Bench asked the A-G that since the Bill was shown as “passed” in the records of the Assembly, who is to examine whether it was rightly passed. None of the nine disqualified Congress MlAs had given the demand for division of votes in writing, said the Bench. “It is a matter falling within the proceedings in the House, over which judicial review is limited,” it added. Moreover, the Court felt that assuming there was procedural irregularities, it was open for the Speaker to cure it on March 28, when the House was to meet next. This was still a good three days before the Money Bill could be passed with majority, the Bench said.
The A-G then focused on the sting operation in which the Chief Minister was shown offering bribe to rebel MlAs. The HC did not take note of the same as it was not verified by the time President’s Rule was imposed in the State on March 27. “You can morally condemn a sting operation but can you make it a ground for proclaiming Emergency. It dents democracy both ways,” said the Bench.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rawat, said this proposition was dangerous for democracy as no State Government will be safe if any instance of corruption or misgovernance will be used by Centre to remove a stable Government. Moreover, Singhvi argued that even while dealing with the President’s Rule in Bihar, the Court held that the panacea for corruption is not President’s Rule but floor test.