Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Harish Chandra Singh Rawat - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and another - Respondents
Intervention Application Nos. 2790 & 2811 of 2016 In Writ Petition No. 795 of 2016 (M/S)
Decided On : 29-03-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Abhishekh Manu Singhvi, Mr. Harin Raval, Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Ms. Padma Lakshmi Iyangar, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Mr. Javedur Rahman, Mr. Devendra Singh Bohra
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Mr. Rajat Nair, Nalin Kohli, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Mr. Syed Nadim, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Amit Singh Chaddha, Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal
The court emphasized the importance of judicial review and ordered a floor test to determine the confidence of the Chief Minister.
Headnote:
Judicial Review - President's Rule - Article 356 of the Constitution of India - [JUDICIAL REVIEW] - [PRESIDENT'S RULE] - [Article 356]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the imposition of President's Rule in the State of Uttarakhand. The Governor had directed the Chief Minister to seek a vote of confidence, but President's Rule was imposed before the scheduled floor test.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that judicial review of administrative action is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It directed the convening of the Legislative Assembly for a floor test to determine the confidence of the Chief Minister.
Issues: The main issue was the imposition of President's Rule and the validity of the Governor's direction for a floor test.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that judicial review is permissible and ordered a floor test to determine the confidence of the Chief Minister.
Final Decision: The court directed the convening of the Legislative Assembly for a floor test and allowed all Members of the Legislative Assembly to participate, pending adjudication of their disqualification.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
a. issue a writ, order or any other appropriate writs, orders quashing the Proclamation dated 27.03.2016 issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India bearing no. F.No.V/11013/2/2016-CSR-I and the consequent Notification thereof; and
b. issue a writ, order or any other appropriate writs, orders quashing the recommendation of the Respondent, recommending imposition of Presidents’ Rule in the State of Uttarakhand; and
c. issue a writ or any other appropriate writs, orders or direction directing the respondent to furnish the records pertaining to the recommendation of the respondent contained in its Report/material, which has culminated in the meeting of the Union Cabinet on 26th/27th March, 2016, recommending imposition of Presidents’ Rule in the State of Uttarakhand and Proclamation dated 27.03.2016 and the consequent Notification imposing President’s Rule in the State of Uttarakhand; and
d. issue a writ or any other appropriate order or direction restoring the Government of the Indian National Congress headed by Shri Harish Rawat, along with his Council of Ministers, to office and revive and reactivate the 3rd Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly; and
e. issue a writ or any other appropriate order or direction in the declaring all consequential actions/orders passed and laws promulgated during the period of Proclamation and President’s Rule as illegal and void-ab-initio and accordingly quash the same;
f. issue Rule nisi in terms of prayer (a) – (e) above; and
g. pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. There is a stay application also, being CLMA no. 2754 of 2016, in which following prayers have been made:
“(i) stay the Proclamation date 27.03.2016 issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India bearing no. F.No. V/11013/2/2016-CSR-I and the consequent Notification thereof; and further be pleased to stay the recommendation of the respondent, recommending imposition of President’s Rule in the State of Uttarakhand.
(ii) grant urgent relief by passing appropriate directions in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in Jagadambika Pal for holding a floor test in order to prove the majority of the petitioner on the floor of the House.”
3. 18.03.2016 was fixed for passage of the Appropriation Bill, 2016. Whereas the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the Appropriation Bill was passed by a voice vote, it is alleged by the opposition MLAs and 09 rebel Congress MLAs that the Appropriation Bill was not passed by majority. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly adjourned the sitting of the Session until 28.03.2016. On 18.03.2016, the Secretary to the Governor of Uttarakhand wrote to the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha requesting for audio-video recording of the proceedings of the Assembly for the perusal of His Excellency the Governor of Uttarakhand. Speaker submitted the records of the same. On 19.03.2016, the Speaker of Vidhan Sabha issued show cause notices to the 09 MLAs of the Congress party on the disqualification petitions filed by Chief Whip of the Congress Legislative party. The Governor of Uttarakhand, on 19.03.2016, directed the Chief Minister to seek vote of confidence from the State Legislative at the earliest but not later than 28.03.2016, which date was fixed by the Speaker for convening the Session, which was adjourned on 18.03.2016. The Secretary, Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha notified the Members of the Legislative Assembly that the next sitting of the First Session of 2016 will be held on 28.03.2016 at 11:00 A.M. The Governor once again wrote to the Chief Minister directing him to take the vote of confidence. The Chief Minister wrote to the Governor that the vote of confidence will be sought on 28.03.2016 at 11:00 A.M. A message under Article 175(2) of the Constitution of India was sent by the Governor to the House directing that the vote of confidence should be held on
