 "SC stays Uttarakhand HC order on floor test")
President’s rule will continue in Uttarakhand and the April 29 floor test in the Assembly ordered by the high court will not take place as the Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its stay on the quashing of central rule.
Hearing the Centre's appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court judgment revoking President's rule , the apex court framed seven tough questions and gave liberty to the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to include other questions the government would like to be addressed.
The Bench comprising judges Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh posted the matter for further hearing on May 3 amidst indication that the verdict may be pronounced before the court breaks for summer vacation by the middle of next month.
The Bench made it clear that it was extending the stay till further orders on the consent of parties.
Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for former Chief Minister Harish Rawat, said there was no question of opposing the Bench's stand on continuing with the interim order for a few more days.
“The matter has its own gravity and ultimately in such a case prima facie we have to sustain democracy and if we don't find merit with the President's rule then we will have to have a floor test. Therefore, as a constitutional concept unless we really vacate our order, not to say lift President's rule, we have to modify our order and have to say go for the floor test. Think over it,” it said.
While answering various questions, Rohatgi said President's rule will be operative for two months till May 27 and if it is upheld by the court, then to have a floor test will be the discretion of the government and if President’s rule is dismissed, it will be a case of non-existence of central rule and in that event the direction to the Governor will be to call for the floor test.
The court listed out seven questions which it wanted to deliberate upon during the course of the hearing and asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and others to assist it.
Singhvi said, that “nine MLAs rebelled against us was no ground for the imposition of President's rule . Was it not horse trading? It was horse trading for one, but good conduct for the other. Subjective morality doesn't exist." Singhvi said a solitary incident cannot be a ground of the President's rule and in the present case, 36 hours before the floor test, the proclamation was issued.
"The floor test was averted when the Governor, Chief Minister and the Speaker had agreed for it," he said.
The apex court had on April 22 stayed till today the judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court quashing the imposition of President's rule, giving a new turn to the continuing political drama in the state by restoring the Central rule there.
Rohatgi narrated the incidents of March 18 saying that the government has fallen into minority with the defeat of the Appropriation Bill as 27 BJP MLAs and nine rebels from the Congress wanted the speaker to allow the vote by division but when it was not allowed they together in 35 numbers approached the governor who was not available so his OSD has taken note of their memorandum which was forwarded to the Speaker.
Later, the governor decided to hold the proceedings with audio and visual recording and has sought the record.
At this, the bench said, "Speaker is the master of the house and it is for him to decide whether there was need of recording the proceedings through audio and video.
