The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a neutral personality to oversee the voting process and ensure objectivity in order to strengthen democratic values and constitutional norms.

ORDER

On being mentioned, the matter is taken on Board.

2. On 06.05.2016, this Court, after taking note of the order passed on 22.04.2016, had passed an order to which both the parties had agreed. It was also conceded that the floor test should be conducted under the supervision of this Court. Ordinarily, there should not have been any difficulty or occasion to mention. However, submits Mr. Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India, that in paragraph 9 and 10 of the order, this Court had stated about the role of the Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand. To have a complete picture, we think it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 9 and 10 of the previous order. They read as follows :

“(9) The Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand, shall see to it that the voting is appositely done and recorded.

(10) The Members voting in favour of the Motion shall singularly vote by raising their hands one by one and that will be counted by the Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly. Similar procedure shall be adopted while the Members voting against the Motion.”

3. It is urged by Mr. Rohtagi that a communication was sent to the principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand and a reply has been received from the Principal 3 Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, State of Uttarakhand on 07.05.2016 indicating, inter alia, that there is no post of Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakahd but there is a post which is called Secretary, Legislative Assembly and there is another post called the Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, State of Uttarakhand. Learned Attorney General would submit that this Court desired to have a neutral personality to remain present at the time of voting and an impression was given that the Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand, is from the cadre of Higher Judicial Service of the State and, therefore, a necessity has arisen for modification of the order.

4. Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, supporting the argument of Mr. Rohtagi, would contend that in a situation like this, there has to be an arrangement by this Court so that voting takes place in the manner the Court has intended. He has pointed out certain aspects of the order to highlight that when situations like this emerge, different steps have been taken by this Court and this is one of such instance.

5. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Kapil Sibbal and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, have seriously opposed the prayer on the ground that there cannot be an outsider, namely, the Principal Secretary, Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs, State of Uttarakhand, inside the House. Emphasising his plea on the Rules made to guide the functioning of the House, it is urged that the Secretary, Legislative Assembly is appointed by the Speaker who has been authorised under the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 which have been framed under Clause (3) of Article 187 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would contend that the persons who are outsiders will not be apt and it should be done by the Secretary, Legislative Assembly, who has a right to enter inside the House. It is also canvassed that the petitioners should 4 not have any apprehension as the Court has directed the manner in which the voting shall take place, and also for video recording.

6. First of all, it is obligatory on our part to recapitulate what transpired in Court on 6.5.2016. We think it necessary to do so. In course of hearing on that day, it was debated upon with regard to the status of the Principal Secretary of the Legislative Assembly and we were apprised that he is a member of the Higher Judicial Services of the State of Uttarakhand. Today, it has been told to us that he is not s