<p class="title">The imposition of President’s rule in Maharashtra on Tuesday is a replica of what happened in Bihar in 2005 when the then Governor Buta Singh made a similar recommendation to the Centre.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In his report to the then Union government, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Bihar Governor said that “since there was little possibility of formation of a stable government,” the state should be put under President’s rule.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, later, the Supreme Court pulled up the Centre and passed strictures against the Governor, who, as a consequence had to quit the gubernatorial post.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It all started on February 27, 2005, when the Bihar Assembly results threw a fractured mandate, resulting in imposition of President’s rule on March 7.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Suspended animation</strong></p>.<p class="bodytext">Since the Assembly was put under suspended animation, the NDA, comprising the JD(U) and the BJP, claimed that it could still form a government.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The JD(U) had won 55 seats and the BJP 37. Together, the two allies had 92 MLAs but were way short of the magic figure of 122 in the 243-member House.</p>.<p class="bodytext">On the other hand, the RJD emerged as the single largest party with 75 seats but, like the NDA, was much short of the half-way mark.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It was then that the NDA leader Nitish Kumar conveyed to the Governor that he enjoyed the support of 115 MLAs in the 243-member House. (He was reportedly trying to split LJP which had 29 MLAs).</p>.<p class="bodytext">With no party able to submit the list of half-way magic figure of 122, the Governor eventually informed the Centre that efforts were made to split the LJP.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Apprehending “large scale horse-trading,” Buta recommended on May 21 that “since a stable government was not possible, the Bihar Assembly be dissolved and fresh elections held.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Cabinet met at midnight May 22 and accepted the Governor’s report, which was later faxed to the then president A P J Abdul Kalam, who was then on a tour to Moscow.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Kalam approved the recommendation in two hours and the Assembly was dissolved.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later, this decision was challenged in the apex court. The then chief justice Y K Sabharwal on October 7, 2005, reprimanded Buta Singh for his actions saying his decision “reeked of malafide intent.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“All canons of propriety were thrown to the wind... Undue haste made by the Governor smacks of malafide intent,” said the CJI.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He also pulled up the then UPA government for “accepting Governor’s report as Gospel truth”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Passing strictures against Buta, the apex court said, "...Clearly the Governor has misled the Council of Ministers.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later, elections for Bihar Assembly were held in October-November 2005 and Nitish was sworn in as chief minister after getting a clear majority.</p>
<p class="title">The imposition of President’s rule in Maharashtra on Tuesday is a replica of what happened in Bihar in 2005 when the then Governor Buta Singh made a similar recommendation to the Centre.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In his report to the then Union government, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the Bihar Governor said that “since there was little possibility of formation of a stable government,” the state should be put under President’s rule.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, later, the Supreme Court pulled up the Centre and passed strictures against the Governor, who, as a consequence had to quit the gubernatorial post.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It all started on February 27, 2005, when the Bihar Assembly results threw a fractured mandate, resulting in imposition of President’s rule on March 7.</p>.<p class="CrossHead"><strong>Suspended animation</strong></p>.<p class="bodytext">Since the Assembly was put under suspended animation, the NDA, comprising the JD(U) and the BJP, claimed that it could still form a government.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The JD(U) had won 55 seats and the BJP 37. Together, the two allies had 92 MLAs but were way short of the magic figure of 122 in the 243-member House.</p>.<p class="bodytext">On the other hand, the RJD emerged as the single largest party with 75 seats but, like the NDA, was much short of the half-way mark.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It was then that the NDA leader Nitish Kumar conveyed to the Governor that he enjoyed the support of 115 MLAs in the 243-member House. (He was reportedly trying to split LJP which had 29 MLAs).</p>.<p class="bodytext">With no party able to submit the list of half-way magic figure of 122, the Governor eventually informed the Centre that efforts were made to split the LJP.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Apprehending “large scale horse-trading,” Buta recommended on May 21 that “since a stable government was not possible, the Bihar Assembly be dissolved and fresh elections held.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Cabinet met at midnight May 22 and accepted the Governor’s report, which was later faxed to the then president A P J Abdul Kalam, who was then on a tour to Moscow.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Kalam approved the recommendation in two hours and the Assembly was dissolved.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later, this decision was challenged in the apex court. The then chief justice Y K Sabharwal on October 7, 2005, reprimanded Buta Singh for his actions saying his decision “reeked of malafide intent.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">“All canons of propriety were thrown to the wind... Undue haste made by the Governor smacks of malafide intent,” said the CJI.</p>.<p class="bodytext">He also pulled up the then UPA government for “accepting Governor’s report as Gospel truth”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Passing strictures against Buta, the apex court said, "...Clearly the Governor has misled the Council of Ministers.”</p>.<p class="bodytext">Later, elections for Bihar Assembly were held in October-November 2005 and Nitish was sworn in as chief minister after getting a clear majority.</p>