Brushing aside strong objections from ousted Congress chief minister Harish Rawat, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the principal secretary, legislative and parliamentary affairs (PSLPA), a neutra
Brushing aside strong objections from ousted Congress chief minister Harish Rawat, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the principal secretary, legislative and parliamentary affairs (PSLPA), a neutral person, to monitor the floor test in the Uttarakhand Assembly on May 10.
On May 6, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh had directed that the principal secretary, Legislative Assembly (PSLA) of Uttarakhand, oversee the floor test and to remain present at the time of voting.
On Monday morning, attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi made a mention before the bench that when the court passed on order on May 6, an impression was given that the PSLA is from the cadre of the higher judicial service of the state. But now it has turned out that there is another principal secretary, legislative and parliamentary affairs, who only belongs to the judicial service and, therefore, a necessity has arisen for modification of the order.
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi strongly opposed any modification of the order and said that since the PSLPA is an outsider, there should not be an observer as that would not be constitutionally permissible. They pointed out that only the PSLA is part of the Assembly and he alone should be allowed during voting.
Rejecting the argument, the bench in its order said, “Today, it has been told to us that the PSLA is not from the higher judicial service. The present situation, if we allow ourselves to say so, is a piquant one. The court ordinarily would not have directed for having a session and direct Mr Rawat to prove his majority in a floor test. Be it noted, in the case of Jagdambika Pal vs Union of India & Ors., the court was under the constitutional obligation to innovate the method and passed an order on February 26, 1998 of composite floor test. Similarly an order passed for the Jharkhand Assembly in March 2005. The bench said “the purpose (to have an observer) is to save the sanctity of democracy, which is the basic feature of our Constitution.”
