New Delhi, Apr 23: Harish Rawat was in the midst of a meeting with officials at Dehradun secretariat, receiving bouquets, when he was told that he is no longer chief minister of Uttarakhand. Leaving bouquets behind, Rawat made a hasty retreat, expressing his disappointment at the Supreme Court order of staying the Uttrakahnad High Court verdict that had restored him as the chief minister.
"From what I understand, yesterday I was a chief minister appointed by the High Court, before that I was dismissed by President's Rule, today I am yet again dismissed as present chief minister," he said on hearing that the apex court had ruled that till its next hearing on Wednesday, the state will remain under President's Rule.
Earlier, chairing a cabinet meeting, Rawat cleared 11 decisions, which included sanctioning Rs 50 crore to each district to address water crisis.
The Centre had appealed in the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict, which was a deep embarrassment for it. The Uttarakhand High Court had also strongly criticised the Centre's motives.
Amidst a high drama in the court, where the hearing lasted for one-and-a-half hour, judges at the Supreme Court also sought an undertaking from the government not to revoke the President's Rule in the state, till, they hear the case.
The two-judge bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiv Kirti Singh accepted attorney general Mukul Rohtagi's submission that the copy of the detailed judgment is not available for the parties concerned in the case but the chief minister Harish Rawat has started taking policy decisions citing the court's oral order. "It is directed that the judgment of the high court shall remain in abeyance till April 27, 2016. That apart, as undertaken by Mukul Rohatgi, AG, the Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential Proclamation till the next date of hearing," the bench said.
It asked the high court to provide the judgment passed on Thursday to the parties and to top court by April 26.
Seeking stay of the high court order, Rohatgi told the court ought to have waited for few more days to pronounce the judgment. "How can the judgment be implemented unless you have the copy of it. It can't deny a party to file an appeal. I see on TV that the respondent (Rawat) says he has been resurrected as the Chief Minister and late in the night calls for cabinet meeting. How can you say that the government has been resurrected. "In the absence of the copy of the judgment the other party cannot go to appeal. The idea is not that you steal a march," Rohatgi said.
The apex court issued notice to Harish Rawat and chief secretary of the state on the petition by Centre challenging the quashing of Presidential proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution in the state. During the hearing, the bench also observed that as a matter of propriety the high court should have signed the verdict so that it would be appropriate for it to go into the appeal. The AG along with senior advocate Harish Salve, pressed for the stay of the judgment on the ground that 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 judgment. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rawat and the Assembly Speaker, opposed the Centre's plea and pressed hard against the passing of any interim order saying "you are allowing the appeal by giving the stay without going through the judgment". 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. "Today we find that in the absence of the signed judgment, somebody is acting in his office which is not appropriate.If the judgment is subject to appeal, it cannot be allowed to be implemented. It cannot be subjected to the advantage of some and disadvantage of others," he submitted.
He said the Presidential proclamation was based on the Union Cabinet's note which has considered the apex court's S R Bommai judgment which has dealt in great length with the issue of Article 356 and the floor test. Rohatgi referred to the March 18 incident when during the presentation and passing of the Appropriation Bill, the Rawat government was reduced to minority with nine Congress MLAs turning rebel and joining hands with 27 BJP MLAs in demanding vote by division which was not allowed by the Speaker and those 35 MLAs complained to the Governor. When the bench asked about the communication of Governor to the President, AG said, the Governor wrote a series of letters but he did not recommend President's rule as it was not necessary under the Constitution. He referred to the sting operation aired on March 25 on TV allegedly showing the then Chief Minister clearly talking about Rs five crore, Rs 10 crore, Rs 20 crore etc.
Rohatgi also criticised the high court verdict which said that the nine rebel Congress MLAs have committed a constitutional sin without being party to the hearing. He said remarks against them were made when their plea against the disqualification was pending before the single judge bench. The AG said without signing the judgment, the Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice C M Joseph, who was presiding judge of the bench which quashed the President's Rule, has left for Delhi to attend the judges conference called by the Chief Justice of India and the same will be over by Sunday. The verdict would be signed next week only. After the court hearing, when dna tried to talk to Justice Joseph, he politely declined to comment on the case.
Comments
Add new comment