NEW DELHI, Apr 22: In a breather to the Modi Government, the Supreme Court today stayed till April 27 the Uttarakhand High Court judgement quashing the imposition of President’s rule in the state in an interim order that also stalled the revival of the Harish Rawat Government.
However, the brief order by the apex court came after it took an undertaking from the Centre that it will not revoke the President’s rule, which has been restored by today’s order.
The court clarified that it was passing an interim order as a measure of balance for both the parties as the copy of the verdict was not made available to them, one of the main grounds on which Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi sought a stay on the effect and operation of High Court’s yesterday’s judgement.
“It is directed that the judgement of the High Court shall remain in abeyance till April 27, 2016. That apart, as undertaken by Rohatgi, Attorney General, the Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential Proclamation till the next date of hearing,” a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said.
While listing the matter for hearing on April 27, the bench said that the High Court shall provide the judgement passed yesterday to the parties by April 26 and on the same date the copy of the verdict shall also be placed before the apex court.
The Supreme Court’s stay has the effect of undoing the revival of the Congress Government led by Harish Rawat by the High Court judgement yesterday, in which the ousted chief minister was asked to prove his majority in the Assembly on Apr 29.
During the hearing, the bench also observed that “as a matter of propriety the High Court should have signed the verdict and made it available to the parties to facilitate them to appeal. It would also have been appropriate for us to do justice.”
“If I would have been in the High Court I would have waited for a few days to give effect to it,” Justice Singh said.
“Without a copy of judgement we cannot go into justiciability of the President’s rule and for now, we are only concerned with the interim arrangement till the copy is made available,” he said.
The apex court issued notice to Harish Rawat and the Chief Seceretary of the state on the petition by the Centre challenging the quashing of the Presidential proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution in the state.
Appearing for the Centre, Rohatgi along with senior advocate Harish Salve, pressed for the stay of the High Court judgement.
He said how one party can be put at advantage and assume the office of Chief Minister when the other party is pushed to disadvantage in the absence of the judgement.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rawat and the Assembly Speaker, argued hard against the passing of any interim order saying “how can the court allow the appeal and grant stay without looking at the judgement of the High Court. How can it be possible.”
Sibal was of the view that allowing stay of operation of the High Court verdict would be like enforcing the proclamation of the President rule.
During the jam-packed hearing, the bench sought to pacify both the parties saying that it has to take a balanced view as this is a Constitutional court.
“We will take on record the copy of the judgement and go through it. This matter is very serious and may go to Constitution bench,” the bench said while also being critical of the manner in which the High Court passed the verdict.
“You don’t revoke President’s rule just like that. You should have called for files,” the bench said and made a mention of the recent hearing conducted by its five-judge Constitution Bench on the challenge to the imposition of President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, the verdict of which is awaited.
Referring to the instant matter, the bench said “We are not going to comment on the merits of the verdict. What is happening is a serious and grave matter for any state.”
“We make it clear what happens inside the Assembly, we would not go into it. We have to examine the grounds on which the Presidential proclamation was made. Whether it was right or not and based on the Bommai judgement.”
“The whole issue is the interference by this court in exercise of judicial review pertaining to the justiciability of proclamation by the President is a serious matter. It has to be debated. Till it is debated, what arrangement can be made,” the bench said.
Further, the bench told Sibal that since he was representing the Speaker, he has to speak by maintaining neutrality.
“The issue is what possible interim arrangement can be made till we get the copy of the judgement,” the bench said even as Singhvi continued to counter the submission made by the Centre making the Speaker responsible for the March 18 incident.
However, the bench said, “there has to be a balance between both the sides” it was slightly concerned about Article 356 which is a serious matter.
When the two sides were trading charges of horse trading, the bench said “try to understand, suppose horse trading is going on, does it not create a dent in democracy?”
Sibal said does nine members of the Congress becoming rebels not amount to horse trading. The bench said that is horse trading. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel