Supreme Court puts off Harish Rawat floor test, extends President's Rule

New Delhi: The Uttarakhand drama continued Wednesday as the Supreme Court ruled out a floor test on April 29 and said President’s Rule will continue till May 3, the date of the next hearing. The court’s decision came as major relief for the BJP and a setback for the Congress and former chief minister Harish Rawat, whose birthday incidentally also fell on Wednesday. He had hoped for a favourable court verdict as a birthday gift, but it was not to be.

“I trust the courts,” Mr Rawat said on Wednesday, but added that a delay would fuel further horse-trading. Two Congress legislators have alleged they have been offered crores of rupees and Parliament seats by the BJP in return for their support during Mr Rawat’s floor test.

Congress dissident leader Vijay Bahuguna, however, said that the allegation that Congress MLAs had been offered bribes to jump ship was “preposterous”, and said that the best way out was to hold fresh elections. “Neither me nor any of my colleagues are interested in becoming chief minister in this scenario,” he said. The Centre imposed President’s Rule in the state on March 27, one day before Mr Rawat was due to seek a trust vote in the Assembly.

While extending till May 3 its interim order passed on April 22 restoring President’s Rule in Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court indicated it will examine whether a state can be brought under President’s Rule only on the ground that the Appropriation Bill was not passed or irregularly passed in the Assembly. The interim order’s extension means that there will not be a floor test on April 29 for Mr Rawat as earlier directed by the Uttarakhand high court.

Soon after the high court had quashed President’s Rule on April 21, Mr Rawat reassumed charge as chief minister, but the very next day the Supreme Court had restored Central rule on the ground that the copy of the judgment was not available.

During the resumed hearing Wednesday before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi submitted the Centre had prepared a set of issues for the court’s consideration. Taking note of these submissions, the bench indicated it will complete the hearing on May 3, 4 and 5 and pronounce the verdict before May 13.

After going through the list of issues, the bench asked the A-G to restrict the number of questions to be answered by the court to seven so that it will be easy to adjudicate. The bench also told the A-G that the Speaker’s decision that a bill is passed or not passed is final. If the proceedings of the Assembly show that the bill is passed, no authority can question if it is passed or not.

Justice Misra repeatedly told the A-G that irrespective of whether the court upholds President’s Rule and dismisses the Centre’s appeal, ultimately a floor test was essential. The bench asked the A-G whether President’s Rule can be kept in abeyance for three days to allow a floor test to be monitored by the court. The A-G, however, rejected this proposal, and said: “There cannot be President’s Rule and no President’s Rule. There can be only one situation. We will argue the appeal on merits.”

The A-G said the high court could not go into the fact of whether there was relevant/inadequate material for the President to impose Article 356. The Speaker did not accept a division in the voting when the money bill was taken up on March 18, and the Speaker declared the bill passed but did not send it to the governor for his assent.

There was a sting operation showing the chief minister openly saying he will get the MLAs. The President was not answerable to the governor and could take a view that was contrary to that of the governor, and his decision was final. When the proclamation was signed by the President, he was satisfied that there was enough material to show something troublesome had happened in the state. The subjective satisfaction of the President was not subject to judicial review and the courts could not interfere, he said.

Congress counsel Abhishek “Manu” Singhvi reiterated that a floor test was the only way to find out the majority of the chief minister. There cannot be an assumption that there was horse-trading and make it a ground to impose President’s Rule in order to short-circuit the floor test, he said, adding that misgovernance, corruption or the Speaker’s conduct/decision in the Assembly could not be a ground to impose President’s Rule. The arguments will continue May 3, and in the meantime the bench granted liberty to the Centre to amend or modify its appeal.