With the Supreme Court deciding on Wednesday to maintain status quo and not implement the Uttarakhand High Court’s judgment of April 21, the floor test ordered by the HC on April 29 will not take place. During the hearing, the Bench questioned Governor K.K. Paul’s authority to seek video and audio recordings of the March 18 Assembly proceedings on the passing of the Money Bill.
“Is it within the Governor’s jurisdiction to ask for division of votes on the Money Bill and for video and audio of the Assembly proceedings? The Speaker is the master of the House, and is it not his prerogative to decide whether there should be video or audio recording of the proceedings of the House,” the Bench asked the Centre.
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the Speaker had refused a division of votes on the Money Bill despite a request from the “majority” 35 MLAs (26 BJP MLAs and nine Congress rebels) on March 18. This proved that the Rawat government was already a “minority” from that day. Mr. Rohatgi said that as far as the Centre was concerned, the real floor test happened on March 18 itself, and there was no need for a further no-confidence motion.
“Whether 28 or 35 MLAs is a matter inside the House. If the government was in a minority as you claim, what follows is a floor test,” Justice Misra observed.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the former Chief Minister Harish Rawat, said it was the first time in India that a proclamation of emergency was a “double whammy.”
“The emergency clouded the authority of the Speaker and prevented the holding of the floor test on March 28. The proclamation came hardly 36 hours before the floor test was to be held,” he submitted.
The Bench further asked whether a sting operation allegedly showing Mr. Rawat horse-trading could actually be a ground for emergency in the State.
To this, Mr. Rohatgi asked whether the President was supposed to keep mum when a Chief Minister was shown on TV openly engaging in horse-trading.
“A sting operation can be socially, idealistically and morally condemned. But can you take that as a factor for imposing President’s Rule? ” Justice Misra asked.
Source: The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment