Uttarakhand fiasco: All that happened in the Supreme Court today

Courts are making and breaking governments – or so it seems. The Uttarakhand fiasco and the ramifications it is likely to have on the federal nature of the Union could be enormous..The day was expected to produce high action. It did not disappoint as the litigation involving significant political stakes played out in the Supreme Court of India culminating in a crisp but weighty interim order..Below is a detailed timeline of what transpired in Supreme Court today in the matter..Just before 10.30 am .Rumours were rife yesterday that the Centre will be mentioning the matter at 4 pm yesterday. However, the same did not happen and the Special Leave Petition was filed today morning challenging the High Court’s decision..The petition.The petition is simple since one of the main contentions by the Centre is that a copy of the High Court judgement has not been made available yet. The petition states that it is being filed based on “telephonic conversation and communication received from the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for India at the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital.”.“It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has been pronounced in open Court and a copy thereof has not become available. The petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment. ……It is due to the urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned judgment, which has not become available.”.The Centre has submitted in its petition that in view of settled principles of law, the scope of judicial review of Presidential Proclamation issued under Article 356 is narrow and limited..“…the Hon’ble Court can only examine the relevancy of the material placed before the Hon’ble President of India; the adequacy, sufficiency, truth or correctness of the material cannot be looked into by the Hon’ble Court.”.The Centre has further contended that proclamation of President’s rule is based on the subjective satisfaction of the President after analysing the material placed before him; And the High Court cannot weigh it against its subjective satisfaction..“High Court failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Court cannot sit as an appellate forum over the Proclamation which is issued by the Hon’ble President of India on his subjective satisfaction based on the material placed before him – including the report of the Hon’ble Governor and also otherwise. It is most respectfully submitted that it would be impermissible for the Hon’ble Court to substitute its own satisfaction in place of the satisfaction of the Hon’ble President of India.”.The Centre has further contended that the imposition of President’s rule was consequent upon the failure of an Appropriation Bill against which 35 MLAs had sought a division vote. It has submitted in its petition that the High Court’s conclusion that failure of Appropriation Bill would not amount to falling of the government, is wrong..“neither was there any Division of Vote on the Appropriation Bill on 18.3.2016, nor was there any show of hands and, perhaps, nor any voice vote and the Appropriation Bill, being a Money Bill, had failed – and thereby the erstwhile Government had lost the confidence of the majority.”.It has also contended that a sting operation revealed money and other allurements being offered to MLAs by the Chief Minister and all these factors were considered before imposing President’s rule..Matter mentioned at 10.30 am .The matter was mentioned by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi before a Bench presided by Justice Dipak Misra who was sitting in Chief Justice’s court today. The Chief Justice and two senior most judges did not sit today as they were engaged in the Chief Justice’s conference..Rohatgi sought urgent hearing of the case. Relying on the fact that a copy of the High Court’s judgment was still unavailable, he queried how the judgment of the court can be implemented without a copy of the same. The Attorney General also said that he is seeking a stay of the judgment and wants the case to be listed today..However, Justice Misra asked the AG to go to the court’s registry for listing the case..Post mentioning – To the Registry and uncertainty.The Centre’s lawyers rushed to the Registry to get the case listed for hearing today. A period of lull followed as the lawyers, media and other interested parties waited to see if the case would be listed today..2.10 pm – Its today.News comes in confirming that the case has been listed for hearing at 3.30 pm today before the Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh.3.30 pm – The hearing.What followed was a lengthy and eventful hearing as lawyers from both sides tore into the others’ arguments. AG Mukul Rohatgi had Senior Advocate Harish Salve by his side, both representing the Central government. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Uttarakhand CM with Kapil Sibal appearing for the Speaker of the Assembly (though he was not a party to the case). Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram appeared for the suspended MLAs..Rohatgi’s submissions.Rohatgi was in his element today, shouting down his opponents with gusto. The primary contention raised by the AG was that the judgment was not made available, and the Uttarakhand Chief Minister assumed charge despite that..“He says he has been reinstated as Chief Minister, calls a Cabinet meeting and takes 11 decisions. There should be a stay of the judgment till the court hears the matter”, said Rohatgi..Rohatgi also submitted that 27 BJP MLAs and 9 Congress MLAs had sought for division vote before the Appropriation Bill was presented on March 18 which amounted to no-confidence in the government. Despite that, the Speaker kept alive the government which had lost the right to govern. That was when the Centre chose to impose President’s rule..Rohatgi also submitted that there was a sting operation on the Chief Minister which clearly showed him offering money and the horse trading coupled with the failure of Appropriation Bill was sufficient for imposition of President’s rule..Whenever Sibal sought to make his submissions, Rohatgi persisted with the argument that the Speaker is not a party to the case..Senior Advocate AM Singhvi.AM Singhvi rebutted the submissions that 9 rebel MLAs had sought for division vote. He said that at 10.30 am on March 18, only 27 BJP MLAs sought for a division vote, and the sitting was over at 7.30 pm..It was after this, at around 11.30 pm, that 9 more MLAs joined the 27 BJP MLAs and gave a written statement to the governor..Singhvi also submitted that a request for a Division vote for an Appropriation Bill will not amount to no-confidence in the government. He also contended that the Chief Minister had agreed to a floor test when the President’s rule was imposed..4.40 pm – HC judgment in ‘abeyance, President’s rule returns! .In the end, the Supreme Court issued notice in the case and ordered that Uttarakhand High court decision “be kept in abeyance” till April 27 which is when the matter will be heard next..Since, the High Court judgment is in abeyance, the President’s rule now stands reinstated. However, the Court recorded Attorney General’s submission that the Centre will not revoke the President’s rule to facilitate formation of a new (BJP) government..Since, no judicial mind has been applied today, the Central government might have to argue again for securing interim relief/ stay on April 27..The Court also ordered the High Court to supply copy of its judgment to the parties and to the Supreme Court by April 26..Interestingly, Justice Dipak Misra remarked during the hearing that the matter is quite serious and might have “to be heard by a Constitution Bench”.