Show Arunachal records, SC tells Centre, governor

Court calls President rule too serious

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre and Arunachal Pradesh Governor J P Rajkhowa to produce all records that prompted the Union government to impose President’s rule in the state.

A five-judge Constitution bench, presided over by Justice J S Khehar, told Attorney General (A-G) Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Satya Pal Jain, appearing for the governor, to file their affidavits by Friday.

The bench described the decision to impose President’s Rule as “too serious” and called for all relevant materials showing the reasons for concluding breakdown of Constitutional machinery in Arunachal Pradesh in a sealed cover.

Senior advocates F S Nariman and Kapil Sibal, who had earlier questioned the governor’s decision to advance the Assembly session before the same bench, submitted that an injunction must be ordered as an interim relief since the subsequent development took place in the form of President’s Rule in the state.

Nariman sought direction to the governor to disclose the date of his report recommending President’s Rule.

The court then gave Jain 15 minutes to submit the report. The bench, however, said: “This is a constitutional issue, we will not pass any order till we have heard all the counsels. We will examine the issue carefully.”

Jain, who went out on the bench’s prodding, came back to submit that there have been series of reports by the governor to the President and the Home Ministry and he would not want to share them with the Congress and its petitioner leaders.

Jain said he would produce records showing how animals were slaughtered and tyres were burnt to threaten the governor.

“It is a matter of priority for us...file your replies by Friday and we will take it up on Monday,” the bench, also comprising Justices Dipak Misra, Madan Lokur, N V Ramana and P C Ghose, told Rohatgi.

The court also brushed aside Rohatgi’s plea that the petitions by the Congress leaders were “misconceived” and should not be entertained since they have challenged the governor’s recommendation but not the President’s notification.

Rohatgi pointed out that the petition was filed on January 24, whereas the President’s notification came on January 26.