Uttarakhand High Court rejects Centre’s plea to defer hearing on President Rule

The Uttarakhand high court on Wednesday turned down the Centre’s plea for deferring the hearing on a petition challenging the imposition of President’s Rule in the state that was filed by former chief minister Harish Rawat.

A bench comprising Chief Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice V.K. Bisht asked the Centre to file a response by Thursday.

The government’s law officers, additional solicitors-general Tushar Mehta and Maninder Singh, pleaded for adjournment of the hearing on the petition by Mr Rawat against bringing the state under Central rule. The ASGs argued for an adjournment on the ground that the former CM had brought in new facts, such as the passage of the Appropriations Bill on the floor of the Uttarakhand Assembly. The law officers wanted time to respond to the fresh submissions.

Appearing for the ousted CM, senior advocate Abhishek “Manu” Singhvi, vehemently opposed the adjournment plea, saying: “No new case has been set up by us and the argument is not relevant, and this case should not be adjourned.”

The court considered the rival submissions and proceeded with the hearing on Wednesday, when Mr Singhvi dealt with legal and factual aspects of the case and stressed that the Centre had misused its power in imposing President’s Rule in the state. He told the court the Centre “subverted” various constitutional principles including federalism, and did not allow the floor test, that was the only valid way to determine whether the government has a majority or not.

The hearing will continue Thursday, and after Mr Singhvi ends his submissions, attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi is likely to respond.

On Wednesday, Mr Singhvi extensively referred to landmark judgments of the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad cases, and said: “The floor test is the only valid way to determine the fact as to whether the government enjoys a majority or not.” He said even if there was a rumour that horse-trading was going on, the Centre should have allowed the floor test to ascertain the situation.

“The decision of the Government of India suffered from mala fide as it is nobody’s case that there was violence or rioting (inside the Assembly). It is not the case that the constitutional machinery had broken down,” Mr Singhvi said. He further said that the Central government was sitting in judgment on proceedings of the Assembly, interfered with the functioning of the House and powers of the Speaker with respect to a Money Bill.

The division bench of the high court had on March 30 stayed the floor test in the Uttarakhand Assembly on the petition filed by the Centre. Staying the order of the single judge, the high court posted the matter for Wednesday for final hearing on the writ petition filed by Mr Rawat that challenged the imposition of President’s Rule in the state.

Earlier, the trust vote was due on March 28, but the Centre imposed President’s Rule on March 27, citing a “breakdown of the constitutional machinery” in the state. This was challenged by Mr Rawat before the single judge of the high court. The single judge, while ordering a floor test on March 31, had also allowed nine disqualified rebel Congress MLAs to participate in the voting. But the single judge’s order was later stayed by the division bench.