The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday adjourned for a day the hearing on plea against the imposition of the President’s Rule in Uttarakhand under Article 356 of the Constitution.
However, before the hearing was adjourned, the court castigated the Centre, and didn’t even spare the President, saying nobody is infallible.
The Uttarakhand High Court made a veiled warning to the Centre, hoping it will not “provoke” the court by revoking the Central rule in the State now and making clear the decision is open to judicial review as even “the President can go wrong”.
“There is no king or absolutism. Howsoever high you are the law is above you. legitimacy of relevant inference drawn from the material that is placed before President is open to judicial review,” a Bench of Chief Justice KM Joseph and Justice VK Bist said.
The Bench made the observations after senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised the apprehension that President’s Rule might be revoked before verdict is pronounced or even reserved.
The Bench is also likely to reserve its verdict on Rawat’s plea against President’s Rule on Thursday. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, who represented the Centre, said that the court has no right to overrule the Presidential order.
Meanwhile, stating that it will approach the Supreme Court if the High Court decision on the Uttarakhand political crisis was not favourable to the party, the BJP on Wednesday said the nine MlAs of the breakaway Congress group in the State Assembly “not losing their membership” would help the party consolidate its political standing vis-à-vis the Congress in the State.
Singhvi said President’s Rule should not be lifted before judgement is reserved or pronounced and the “Opposition” should not be invited to form a Government as this would render the plea infructuous.
He also said that the Centre cannot resort to such tactics to force the court to deliver a verdict quickly. Referring to the NDA Government’s argument, that the President took the decision to impose Article 356 of the Constitution in his “political wisdom”, the Bench observed, “People can go wrong, be it the President or the judges.”
This observation was made after the Centre contended that the President’s understanding of the material before him would be different from that of the court.
The Government’s contention came after the Bench said that from the reports sent by the Governor to the President, regarding the situation in the State, “What we have understood is that everything was processing towards a floor test on March 28.”
The High Court, during the hearing, also noted that the Governor in his reports to the President never mentioned that 35 MlAs sought division of votes.
“Governor has to be personally satisfied. He has not recorded his personal satisfaction that 35 MlAs had sought division on the floor of the house,” the court said, adding that his reports do not say that the nine rebel Congress MlAs had also sought a division.
It also said that there was “absolute absence of material that would create an apprehension in the mind of the Governor” that President’s rule needs to be imposed.
“So how did Centre arrive at the satisfaction that 35 stood upIJ From Governor’s reportsIJ” the court asked.
“Governor’s letter of March 19 to the President does not mention that 35 MlAs had sought division of votes. That is conspicuous by its absence. It is absolutely crucial,” the Bench said.
To this the Centre said that on March 19 the Governor did not have all the details.
The court also took a “serious view” of the fact that though the Centre had alleged that the Speaker of the house had kept the disqualification complaint against BJP MlA Bhim lal Arya pending in reality the complaint against him was filed only after President’s Rule was imposed.
“Why was the complaint filed on April 5 after President’s Rule was imposedIJ We were thinking about why the Speaker has double standards (that he disqualified the nine rebel Congress MlAs but kept the complaint against Arya pending).
“This is terrible. You are making such terrible allegations (against Speaker). Is this how Government of India functionsIJ What do you (Centre) have to say about thisIJ This is not to be taken lightly as that (Speaker’s conduct regarding disqualification) was also the basis of President’s satisfaction. We are taking a serious note of this,” the Bench said.
During the second half of the day’s proceedings, the court also directed a query to the petitioner, Rawat, that looking at his conduct “why the discretion (of Article 356) should not be exercised”.
The court was referring to the sting operation which allegedly pointed to Rawat’s involvement in horse-trading.
To this Rawat’s counsel, Singhvi, said that the sting was an “alleged solitary example” which “bordered on entrapment”.