A big decision by the union government ongoing
political crisis in Uttarakhand had been taken. The government recommended ending
of budget session. It is assumed that the step by the union government has been
taken to adopt path of bringing an ordinance for the bill of appropriation of
Uttarakhand. The ordinance during the budget session continued in parliament
cannot be proposed. The first phase of budget session has been finished, while
the remaining is to be completed in April.
The high court of Uttarakhand Tuesday gave its
decision on Writ petition filed by congress to challenge the president rule and
the defection of 9 rebel legislators; flipping the president rule in
Uttarakhand, the high court single bench said to prove the majority of Harish
Rawat government on floor test by 31 March.
Vikas Singh and Dinesh Dwivedi,
senior counsel as respondent on behalf of rebel legislators, were present there
on Monday. The court said to the centre to file its response by Tuesday
after hearing argument of Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the leader and advocate.
The union government is
pondering over all the remedy in this matter. The government has challenged the
decision of high court on Wednesday. Mukul Rohatgi, Attorney General, submitted
the side of government. The union government had imposed the president rule on
the recommendation of governor, while the high court ordered to prove the
government its majority.
The congress welcomed the
decision of high court, saying it will prevent
interfere of union government in the state affairs; but the congress
challenged the court’s decision of given voting right to the suspended rebel
legislators in double bench.
The union government as respondent argued the cause of
president rule in the state before the court, but the court ordered in the
favour of congress and said to prove majority by 31 March.
Ml Sharma asked the CBI inquiry in the case filing the public
interest litigation in Supreme Court. The matter of legislator’s horse trading
is serious in nature and this must be probed.
The congress leader, Harish
Rawat with 34 legislators on Monday met with the state governor and he claimed
his side before him; on the other hand, the BJP leader and union minister, Arun
Jaitley dubbed the president rule an appropriate decision because the state
government was murdering the democracy. Consequently the decision to impose the
president rule in Union cabinet was taken.
It is noticeable that Singhvi and Kapil Sibal both are the
counsel of the case. Both are the lawyers.
The president signed on this
declaration under article 356 of constitution. Uttarakhand Assembly was
suspended. It was decision taken prematurely of floor test. The congress
leaders and Rawat dubbed the decision of centre to impose the president rule “the
murder of democracy.” They say when the governor had given the chance of floor
test to Harish Rawat by 28 March, why did the union government take a haste
decision to dismiss the elected government?
The BJP in Uttarakhand unit has claimed that
it is largest party in Uttarakhand, therefore it should be given chance for the
floor test to prove its majority.
The floor test of Harish Rawat
government in Uttarakhand will not be on 31st March in assembly. The double
bench of high court has given this order. Both the main parties have agreed
upon the decision.
The apex court said that the
floor test will take place after next hearing on 6th April.
The high court double bench
heard the petition on the imposition of president rule and the counsel from the
union government, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi was asked by the court that
when a day had remained for the floor test, why did the union government took
so haste decision to impose the president rule. Court said it is important to
give the chance any party to prove its majority and it is a healthy process.
AG said that the floor test may
be any government, but there is neither any cabinet nor any minister. The
assembly has been dismissed. How may be the floor test? He added that there was
allegation of horse trading of legislators to form government. Consequently the
assembly and the president rule in the state was the last option.
Court said it is our duty that the article 356 of
constitution must not be used for the political purpose.
