The Uttarakhand high court, during the hearing on the petition challenging the imposition of President’s Rule in the state, also noted on Wednesday that the governor in his reports to the President ne
The Uttarakhand high court, during the hearing on the petition challenging the imposition of President’s Rule in the state, also noted on Wednesday 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 and added 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 Government of India arrive at the satisfaction that 35 stood up From governor’s reports ” the court asked.
“The 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 imposed 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 functions What do you (Centre) have to say about this 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.
Additional Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta said he would need to take instructions on it and would tell the court Thursday after which the bench listed the matter Thursday for this clarification.
The bench is also likely to reserve its verdict on former chief minister Harish Rawat’s plea against President’s Rule on Thursday.
During the second half of the day’s proceedings, the court also directed a query to the petitioner, Mr Rawat, that looking at his conduct “why the discretion (of Article 356) should not be exercised”.
