Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Union of India – Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat and Anr. – Respondents
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11567 of 2016, S.L.P.(C) ... CC 7915 of 2016, S.L.P.(C) ... CC 7916 of 2016
Decided On : 06-05-2016
For the Petitioners:Mukul Rohatgi, A.G., Tushar Mehta, ASG, Maninder Singh, ASG, Col. R. Balasubramanian, Nalin Kohli, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Diksha Rai, Rajat Nair, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Manan Popli, Akshay Amritanshu, Anil Katiyar, AOR, Sameer Rohatgi, Samit Khosla, M. Thangathnai, dvocates, C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv., Mahesh Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Advocates, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Padmalakshmi Iyengar, Amit Bhandari, K.C. Kaushik, Amit Bhandari, Rahul Kaushik, Ms. Satya Priya Satyam, Nizam Pasha, Ms. Anjana Singh, Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, Ravindra Singh Bist, Rajesh Inamdar, Kapil Sibbal, Sr. Adv., Nizam Pasha, Javed-Ur Rahman, Advocates, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Adv., K.C. Kaushik, Ravindra Bisht, Ayush Negi, Rahul Kaushik, AOR, Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Nalin Kohli, Prabhas Bajaj, Gaurav Sharma, Advocates, Rahul Kaushik, Advocate.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy and upheld the constitutional provisions under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
judgment - Presidential Proclamation - Article 356 of the Constitution of India - [Article 356] - The court quashed the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The court directed a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy.
Fact of the Case:
The court quashed the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The court directed a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy.
Issues: Validity of the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India was quashed. The court directed a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The court directed a floor test of the Assembly to resolve the controversy.
ORDER :
S.L.P.(C) No. 11567 of 2016
The present special leave petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2016, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.795 of 2016, whereby the Division Bench has quashed the order of Proclamation dated 27th March, 2016, issued by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. We need not advert to any of the facts that has been adumberated in the said judgment, for the nature of the order we are passing today. That is for another day.
2. When the special leave petition was taken up on 22nd April, 2016, the Court issued notice and passed the following order:-
"Issue notice.
As Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Amit Bhandari, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1, no further notice need be issued. As far as the respondent No.2 is concerned, let service be effected through Dasti.
Let the matter be listed on 27th April, 2016.
The High Court is requested to provide the judgment dated 21st April, 2016, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.795 of 2016, to the parties by 26th April, 2016. The judgment shall be filed before this Court on that day.
Having heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the Union of India in connected special leave petitions, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Uttarakhand, it is directed that the judgment of the High Court shall remain in abeyance till 27th April, 2016. That apart, as undertaken by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, the Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential Proclamation till the next date of hearing."
3. Be it stated, after the said order was passed the judgment passed by the High Court was brought on record and the petitioner had sought time to amend the special leave petition to incorporate the grounds assailing the defensibility of the same and the same was permitted. The matter was adjourned thereafter and when it was listed on 4th May, 2016, regard being had to the oral suggestion given on the prior date, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, submitted that the Union of India was seriously considering the suggestion given by this Court to have a floor test of the Assembly to put an end to the controversy that has emerged in this case. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. Kapil Sibal and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that they had no objection. The matter was accordingly adjourned and the interim order was allowed to remain in force.
4. Today, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for Union of India, has submitted that the petitioners have no objection to have a floor test of the Assembly. Learned counsel appearing for both the sides have debated over the suggestions that have been given by the Court, as well as by each other, sometimes with appreciable amity and sometimes with some cavil, but, eventually, there has been an agreement.
5. Be it noted, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, very fairly stated, which was conceded to by Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India, that they have no objection and we state it with uninhibited appreciation at our command that the floor test should be conducted under the supervision of this Court. The agreed position which has emerged after quite a long debate, is recorded below:-
(1) A Special Session of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly be summoned/convened on 10th May, 2016, commencing 11.00 a.m.
(2) The only agenda in the Assembly would be the Vote of Confidence sought by the respondent No.1, namely, Shri Harish Singh Rawat.
(3) Apart from the said agenda, nothing else shall be discussed in the Assembly.
(4) The proceedings in the Assembly
