Just hours after Uttarakhand High Court questioned the Centre’s move to impose President’s Rule in the state, Congress made a decision to hold a “Torch Rally” in Dehradun protesting against the President rule.
Advertisement
A bench of Chief Justice K M Joseph and Justice V K Bist said the Centre is supposed to have a neutral stand in matters concerning the states, and it is “totally extraneous” for the central government to be concerned about the disqualification of nine rebel MLAs in a state ruled by an opposition party.
The court said the reason cited by the Central in the present case, and where two different political parties are at the Centre and state, may lead to a situation where the central government is “watching with a magnifying lens, where there is an opportunity for imposing President’s rule”.
The court also said, “Can the Centre topple a democratically elected government in its fifth year?”
“Whether the government enjoyed confidence can be tested in a floor test”.
Referring to the communication sent by the Governor to the Speaker regarding the MLAs’ demand for division of votes, the court observed that the Governor should have “stayed his hand”.
In his plea, Rawat has sought a direction to the Governor that he should be asked to form the government first if any decision to revoke the Presidential Rule is taken by the Centre during the pendency of his main petition. “In the past five years, every government has been sharing blames for corruption”.
The state was brought under central rule on March 27, a day before Rawat was to take a floor test to prove his majority as nine dissident MLAs sided with the BJP to protest against the finance bill. It is the Governor who must call the shots. Even if nine MLAs were disqualified, horse-trading was going on. “Besides the option of President’s rule, is the floor test not the best option to check whether they enjoy majority or not?” the court said.
Advertisement
The AG argued that the CM’s plea instead shows that demand for division was raised after the bill was tabled and passed which was “misleading” and a “deliberate misstatement” and thus the petition ought to be dismissed.
