JOIN USApex court stays HC order on Prez rule
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Uttarakhand High Court order reviving the Harish Rawat government. The court also directed the Union government not to revoke President’s Rule till April 27.
Staying the high court order passed on Thursday, a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh noted that the judgment, though dictated in open court, has not been made available.
In a strong comment against the high court, the apex court said: “It (President's Rule) is quite serious and grave matter, you don’t revoke President’s Rule like this. How much deliberation took place? What kind of logic is behind it (judgment)?”
Passing an interim order on a special leave petition filed by the Centre, the court directed the high court to make available copy of its judgment by April 26.
The bench said that on the next date of hearing, April 27, the court would decide whether a floor test should be held on April 29 in accordance with the high court order or the matter should be referred to the Constitution bench. It also issued notice to Rawat.
Allowing a petition by Rawat, a high court bench presided over by Chief Justice K M Joseph had on Thursday dictated the judgment but said the written judgment would be made available only next week.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi urged the apex court to stay to high court’s order delivered on a petition filed by Rawat. He contended the idea is not to steal the march, the high court should have made the judgment available.
“When you don’t have a copy of the judgment, it should not be implemented,” Rohatgi submitted.
Rohatgi contended that with the high court order, the chief minister has called a Cabinet meeting and took 11 decisions as per the news report, while the governor is also awaiting for the copy of the judgment.
The bench said, “This is an unseemly situation. Higher constitutional functionaries should behave with higher responsibilities.”
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Rawat, submitted the chief minister had to take charge with the high court’s order. He contended that the apex court may direct the high court to make available the copy of the judgment by Monday.
SC BENCH: There has to be a balance. We are slightly concerned. Article 356 is a serious matter for both sides. There are a few matters of propriety. If the high court had signed the judgment, we could have looked into it. For a party to take remedial action, a written order has to be there
Justice Shiva Kirti Singh: If I were the high court judge, I would have made my judgment operational only after three or four days when it is signed and ready. It is more on propriety than legality. Governance of a state cannot be left in the lurch