The Supreme Court on Friday asked the BJP and the Congress to clarify if they intended to form a government in Delhi. The court was hearing a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) which has questioned the decision of the Centre to impose President’s Rule and keep the Assembly under suspended animation despite outgoing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s recommendation to dissolve the House and hold fresh polls. The court issued notice to the two political parties to respond on AAP’s petition by March 31.
The Centre has claimed before the SC that the Delhi l-G’s report to the President suggesting the possibility of the BJP staking claim to form the Government could not be rejected. The Bench wondered what led the l-G to form such a view in the absence of any formal representation sent to him by any of these parties.
The Bench of Justices RM lodha and NV Ramana was concerned that in the event no political party stepping in to stake claim to form a government, the House would remain suspended for one year. “What worries us, if suspended animation continues for one year in a situation, which is peculiar, it will be harmful for democracy….None of these parties — BJP or Congress has made any representation to Governor or President so far.”
AAP’s counsel and senior advocate Fali Nariman claimed that the BJP had refused to form a government, and as they were short of majority by four members, there was no possibility other than Congress and BJP joining hands. In the alternate, even if two independents were to support the BJP, still they depended on defection from the AAP to form a government.
On a careful study of these facts, the Bench noted, “Having regard to the position all parties have taken, there was absolutely no possibility but for defection.” Further, the judges noted, “At time of resignation, government enjoyed majority” since two Bills for supplementary grant got cleared by the same House which blocked tabling of the Jan lokpal Bill.
Attorney General GE Vahanvati pointed out that Presidential order could be revoked anytime. But for the court to advise so would depend on the response by the two parties.