Asking Centre to justify the imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court posed seven questions to the government.
The President's rule will continue in Uttarakhand and the April 29 floor test in the assembly ordered by the high court will not take place as the Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its stay on the quashing of the central rule.
Hearing the Centre's appeal against the Uttarakhand high court judgement revoking President's rule, the apex court framed seven tough questions and even gave liberty to the attorney general to include other questions the government would like to be addressed.
The bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh posted the matter for further hearing on May 3 amidst indication that the verdict may be pronounced before the court breaks for summer vacation by the middle of next month.
The bench made it clear that it was extending the stay on the Uttarakhand high court verdict till further orders on the consent of parties.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rawat, said there was no question of opposing the bench's stand on continuing with the interim order staying the high court's order for few more days.
During the hearing, the bench said possibly the answer to the current incident would ultimately be the floor test and asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to think over the questions and suggestions put forward by it.
"The matter has its own gravity and ultimately in such a case prima facie we have to sustain democracy and if we don't find merit with the President's rule then we will have to have a floor test.
"Therefore, as a constitutional concept unless we really vacate our order, not to say lift President's rule, we have to modify our order and have to say go for the floor test. Think over it," it said.
The attorney general said that he will think over it and inform the court.
The bench also said that this is an emergent situation.
While answering various questions Rohatgi, said President's rule will be operative for two months till May 27 and if it is upheld by the court, then to have a floor test will be the discreation of the government and if the President's rule is dismissed, it will be a case of non-existence of central rule and in that event the direction to the governor will be to call for the floor test.
In a high-voltage hearing that commenced at 2pm in a packed court room, the bench, at the outset, took strong note of the plea of Uttarakhand chief secretary that he be also allowed put forth his views in the matter.
"What will the chief secretary do? Chief secretary has nothing to do with the matter. What kind of affidavit he is going to file," the bench said.
The court then listed out seven questions which it wanted to deliberate upon during the course of the hearing and asked Rohatgi and others to assist it.
"Whether the governor could have sent the message in the present manner under Article 175 (2) for conducting floor test," the bench said in its first question.
It further sought response on the question as to whether the disqualification of MLAs by the speaker is a "relevant issue" for the purposes of invoking President's rule under Article 356 of the constitution.
Referring to constitutional scheme that the assembly proceedings are beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the apex court also posed the query whether the proceedings of the House can be considered for invoking President's rule.
Dealing with the claim and counter claim with regard to the fate of the appropriation bill in the Uttarakhand assembly, it said that the next question is as to when the President's role comes in the picture.
"Can the delay in the floor test be a ground for proclamation of the President's rule," it asked.
The apex court, referring to defections of individual lawmakers, said that it is a matter of deliberations as to how this issue can be taken into account with regard to imposition of President's rule.
Lastly, the bench said that democracy "hinges on some stable concepts" and they may vary with a particular view point taken by rival political groups.
The court said an incident can be termed as destabilising for democracy by one political group and simultaneously, the other party can have divergent view on it.
Rohatgi, who opened arguments, said the Centre has also framed certain issues and they needed to be dealt with.
He gave accounts of events that had taken place on March 18 with BJP MLAs requesting the governor to ask the speaker to have a division of votes in the assembly on the appropriation bill which was to be introduced in the House, later in the day.
Rohatgi said the majority of MLAs including 27 of BJP and 9 others had demanded from the speaker for division on the appropriation bill but the request was denied.
The bench then asked the attorney general as to whether the court can examine the incidents which have happened in the house and said that as per earlier judgement, unless there is "gross irregularity", the court cannot interfere.
Rohatgi said the majority rules under the Constitution and if majority of MLAs demands division, "can the speaker say he won't allow the request, he can't under the law and that is the illegality."
"Speaker is the master of the house but he is not a king. He has to be guided by procedures," Rohatgi said.
The bench then said that the Centre has to justify the proclamation on the reasons and said that if the proceedings recorded that the Bill has been passed then who has got the right to question the contrary.
The attorney general said the sequence of events on March 18, when the appropriation bill was said to be passed in the house and March 25, the day a sting operation was carried out in which Chief Minister Rawat was on camera purportedly talking about funds and MLAs, have to be clubbed together and seen in a "holistic way".
He said that the high court verdict says these are solitary incidents and the sting operation was verified after the President's rule was imposed.
"Whether court can go into the sufficiency and veracity of material before the President. Even if the governor doesn't say that assembly be dissolved or not, the President can do so on his own based on materials on record," the attorney general said.
The bench said that to prove that the government was in minority, there should have been a floor test and whether the bill was passed or not will be a "quintessential question".
"It was actually a floor test when the money bill was not passed in the House and the government was reduced to minority," he said.
"What will the governor do? Shall he say that put the bill again to vote or go for the floor test. Since money bill is passed but he is not satisfied and in that way the governor's position becomes little lower because he has nothing to do with the proceedings of the house," the bench said.
It asked the Centre that if it is supposed that the money bill is passed by majority but the Speaker delays the bill in sending it to the governor, can it be a ground for imposition of President's rule.
To this, the attorney general said if the appropriation bill is not passed or delayed it would lead to "financial crisis in the state" and the President cannot wait for March 31 to take power in his own hand.
The bench said that for Presidential proclamation, there has to be a cluster of factors which needs to be taken into consideration and the relevancy of such factors should have the constitutional basis.
Regarding the sting operation, the bench said, "one can ideally condemn it or morally condemn it as it creates a dent in the democracy."
Singhvi said that if there was assumption of horse trading then the best "panacea was a floor test" because the window of President rule also provides scope for the horse trading.
Image: Former Uttarakhand CM Harish Rawat addressing a press conference. Photograph: PTI
