UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA
Harish Chandra Singh Rawat
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In pursuance of orders dated 06.05.2016 and 09.05.2016, a special session of the Uttarakhand Assembly was convened on
10.05.2016 at 11.00 a.m. The proceedings of the floor test was appropriately observed by the Principal Secretary, Legislative and
Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Uttarakhand and the Secretary,
Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned
Attorney General for India along with Mr. Tushar Mehta and Mr.
Maninder singh, learned Additional Solicitor Generals for the Union
of India and Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Dr. Rajeev
Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the respondents, fairly submit
that there has been no irregularity in carrying out the voting. We
have opened the result of the voting that has been produced before
us in a sealed cover by Mr. Jaidev Singh, Principal Secretary,
Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Uttarakhand.
On a perusal of the same, we find that the 1 st respondent has
obtained 33 votes out of 61 votes. Be it clarified, nine members
of the Legislative Assembly could not vote as they stood
disqualified as on that day and even today. Mr. Jaidev Singh,
Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affiars,
Government of Uttarakhand has apprised us that there was no
irregularity in the voting procedure. We accept the same. We may
hasten to clarify that the same position has been accepted by the
learned Attorney General for India. At this juncture, it is
submitted by the learned Attorney General that the order dated
22.04.2016 be modified so that the Union of India which is wedded to the concept of democracy, shall take steps for revocation of the
proclamation of President's Rule. For the sake of completeness, we
may reproduce the relevant part of the order dated 22.04.2016 :
"Having heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the Union of India in connected special leave petitions, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttarakhand, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court shall remain in abeyance till 27th April, 2016. That apart, as undertaken by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, the Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential Proclamation till the next date of hearing."
(2.) keeping in view the prayer made by the learned Attorney General, we vary the order by granting liberty to the Union of
India to revoke the proclamation of President's Rule in the State
of Uttarakhand in course of the day. Needless to say, after the
Presidential Rule is revoked, the 1st respondent can assume the
office of the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.
(3.) Two aspects we intend to clarify. One, the issue of justifiability of the proclamation of President's Rule that was
made on 27.03.2016 which has been annulled by the impugned order
passed by the High Court will remain alive, for the High Court has
ascribed many a reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the said
proclamation was not tenable in law. It required to be scrutinized
whether within the scope of judicial review, such a finding could
have been arrived at or for that matter whether the opinion arrived
at by the President of India to proclaim the President's Rule at
the relevant point of time was justified or not. We may hasten to
add, we have directed for floor test on concession of the parties
and we had varied the order today on a prayer being made by the
Union of India.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.