There will be no floor test for the dismissed Harish Rawat government on April 29 as the Supreme Court on Wednesday continued the central rule in Uttarakhand and promised a swift verdict on the constitutional validity of the Centre’s recourse to Article 356.
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said it was a matter of immense constitutional importance and would be decided expeditiously, thus ruling out the traditional reference of such petitions to a five-judge constitution bench, which normally take months to pass an order.
Importantly, the court got the Centre to commit afresh that it would not lift central rule till pronouncement of the verdict, something which should calm the opposition’s fears that the BJP will manage a majority in the state assembly and approach the governor to revoke central rule and invite it to form the government.
Before adjourning the hearing, the bench asked attorney general Mukul Rohatgi to take instructions on whether it was acceptable for the Centre to allow trust vote in the House and submit its result in a sealed cover to the SC. The AG said it was not acceptable and the government would prefer a final verdict. Still, the SC asked the AG to take instructions and inform it on Tuesday.
It fixed a three-day schedule for the completion of the hearing and gave itself a week to pen the judgment.
The Supreme Court asked Rohatgi to commence arguments on May 3 and conclude by May 4 afternoon. Counsel for Rawat and the assembly Speaker, senior advocates A M Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, were told to complete their submissions by May 5. “We will give the judgment before the court closes for summer vacation on May 13,” the bench said. If it actually happens, then this case will go down in judicial history as the swiftest decision in a case involving scrutiny of constitutional validity of use of Article 356.
Terming the issues raised in the Centre’s appeal and Rawat’s petition before the HC as matters of immense constitutional importance, the bench put forward seven questions outlining the parameter for testing the validity of the imposition of central rule. The HC had quashed the central rule on April 21 as unconstitutional and restored the Rawat government.
Rohatgi, assisted by additional solicitors general Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta, justified the central rule on three grounds-Rawat government’s failure to pass the appropriation bill on March 18, the Speaker’s “unconstitutional” action in declaring the bill passed when it had failed, and the sting operation which showed Rawat purportedly indulging in horse-trading.
Singhvi and Sibal said if horse-trading was a ground, then central rule should have been imposed when BJP lured away nine Congress MLAs. “The Union government cannot indulge in selective morality. And, if corruption is a ground for imposition of central rule, then not a single government in the states can survive for five minutes,” they said, admitting the deep roots corruption has struck in the country.
The bench said, “Horse-trading should be ideally and morally condemned. But can that be taken as a ground for taking recourse to Article 356 and dismissing an elected government? Both horse-trading and central rule dent democracy. The ultimate test of democracy in assembly is the floor test.”
Singvi said horse-trading could never be a ground for imposition of central rule and cited the Rameshwar Prasad judgment, which had quashed the UPA government’s decision to impose central rule in Bihar in 2005.
Singhvi said then governor Buta Singh for 45 days after elections, which returned a hung assembly, kept writing letters to the Centre claiming massive horse-trading to buy support of MLAs. “But the Supreme Court ruled that the only panacea for horse-trading is trust vote on the floor of the House,” he said.
Sibal said the Speaker was the master of proceedings in the House and after he declared that the appropriation bill was passed, what mechanism did the Union Cabinet sitting in Delhi have to determine that it was not passed. “Can the Union government determine the legality of the proceedings in a House, which a constitutional court is barred from?” he asked.