In a development that further queered the pitch for the Centre on its decision to impose President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa to submit his report recommending Central rule in the border state.
Click here to connect with us on WhatsApp
The apex court asked the home ministry and the governor to file responses by Friday on petitions by Congress leaders, including a plea by chief whip of Congress Legislature Party in the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly Rajesh Tacho.The five-member Bench, headed by judge J S Khehar, remarked “it is too serious a matter”. This was after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi put forth a preliminary objection that the fresh plea by Tacho didn’t challenge the Presidential notification that promulgated Central rule in the state. It asked the Attorney General not to raise “technical objections”.
More From This Section
The Assembly is currently under suspended animation. The Congress feared and the Bharatiya Janata Party sources exuded confidence, that the petition might become redundant in the days to come if another government gets sworn in and manages to prove its majority.
This will also mean that the government at the Centre would not have to get the approval of the two Houses of Parliament when the Budget session convenes by February 23. The government is in a minority in the Rajya Sabha and it is nearly certain it will lose the motion in that House.
In the court, the Bench allowed the petitioners to amend their plea by Friday. Additional Solicitor General Satpal Jain, appearing for the governor, sought to maintain secrecy of the report that recommended President's rule. The Bench sought the report in a sealed cover.
“Unless we get the grounds for recommending the President's rule, we cannot proceed. If grounds are not the same in the proclamation, then it is totally a different ball game,” the Bench, also including judges Dipak Misra, M B Lokur, P C Ghose and N V Ramana, said during the hearing.
A battery of senior lawyers including Fali S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhawan and Vivek Tankha opposed the plea of the governor. But, Jain argued the report included photographs to suggest the governor was under threat as slaughtering of animals, burning of tyres and posters took place outside the Raj Bhawan.
On Rohatgi’s argument that there were more than one report on which the President acted, the Bench said: “You (Attorney General) have been saying there have been a series of recommendations. Look at the President's proclamation. It only speaks about one report and information,” it said.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, said the court should look into the legality of the actions taken by the Centre even if there is a new chief minister, who will have to prove his majority before February 23. Sibal said if no government is formed, then there is no option but to dissolve the House and go for fresh elections.
The Bench is examining the Constitutional provisions on the scope of discretionary powers of the governor in recommending President’s rule after Nabam Tuki-led Congress government failed to meet the constitutional provision of even once convening an Assembly session in six months.
Congress’ 21 legislators had rebelled against Tuki and joined hands with 11 of BJP and two independents to 'impeach' the then Assembly speaker Nabam Rebia at a makeshift venue, a move branded as “illegal and unconstitutional” by the speaker. But, 27 MLAs in 60-member Assembly, including Tuki and his ministerial colleagues, boycotted the proceedings. The rebels later ‘elected’ another dissident Congressman Kalikho Pul as the new ‘chief minister’ of the state. The Centre has also appointed former Delhi Police Commissioner Y S Dadwal and retired IAS officer G S Patnaik as advisors to the governor.