Acting within 24 hours of the Uttarakhand High Court reviving the Harish Rawat Government, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the order, but also restrained the Centre from revoking President’s Rule, till the case is heard on merit. The apex Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh granted stay on Thursday’s High Court order as an interim arrangement till Wednesday in order to facilitate the Centre to have a copy of the judgment, expected to be ready by Tuesday.
Putting its best legal foot forward, the Centre employed the services of Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Harish Salve to persuade the Bench to grant a stay, as the non-availability of judgment gave an “unfair” advantage to the Congress since the HC had restored the ousted Chief Minister Harish Rawat to power while directing a floor test to decide majority in the State Assembly on April 29.
Commenting on the manner in which Rawat had begun taking policy decisions by calling a Cabinet meeting late on Thursday evening, Rohatgi said, “This is not a case where you have to take possession. These are constitutional posts which are not to be grabbed in this manner. Higher level of probity is expected from constitutional authorities like the Chief Minister.”
Without deciding on merits, the Bench felt that “propriety” demanded suspension of the HC’s order till the copy of the order is made available to both parties.
The Congress too fielded its best legal giants, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Rawat and Speaker of the Assembly, respectively.
Referring to charges of horse-trading against Rawat, Singhvi contended that even if the allegation is proved, the SC in its judgment striking down President’s Rule in Bihar held that the ultimate panacea is a floor test. He submitted that the Rawat Government will not take any decision till April 29 to maintain a level playing field, but it was not acceptable to the Centre.
Sibal told the court that the main grievance of the Centre was on passing of the Appropriation Bill in Assembly without a division. “This falls within the Speaker’s discretion to conduct the House. Does the Cabinet in Delhi decide whether the Appropriation Bill has been rightly passed,” he asked.
The Bench noted the concern of both sides and said, “The issue before us is the exercise of judicial review pertaining to justifiability of Presidential Proclamation. Till it is debated, an interim arrangement has to be made. lawyers may be aware of a judgment pronounced in court but for a party to act and take remedial measures, a written order is necessary.”
Restoring President’s Rule, the Bench told the A-G, “If we are staying the HC judgment, you (Centre) shall also not revoke the Presidential Proclamation.”
Proclamation of President’s Rule and quashing of the same are serious and grave matters for any State, said the Bench, adding, “You do not revoke such an order without calling for files. It creates a dent on democracy both ways.”
The court, however, refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by nine disqualified rebel Congress MlAs to shift their matters pending before a single judge of Uttarakhand HC to the SC. They complained there was nothing left to decide by the single judge after the HC on Thursday observed on their action to side with BJP as a “constitutional sin”.