 "Non-adversarial tax regime ahead")
The legitimacy of the President's decision to suspend the Uttarakhand Assembly was subject to judicial review as even he could go wrong, the Uttarakhand high court said on Wednesday.
Referring to the National Democratic Alliance government's argument that the President took the decision to impose Article 356 of the Constitution in his "political wisdom", a bench of Chief Justice K M Joseph and V K Bist said, "People can go wrong, be it the President or the judges."
This observation was made after the Centre contended that the President's understanding of the material before him would be different from that of the court.
The government's contention came after the Bench said that from the reports sent by the Governor to the President, regarding the situation in the state, "what we have understood is that everything was processing towards a floor test on March 28."
The high court, during the hearing, also noted that the Governor in his reports to the President never mentioned that 35 MLAs (members of legislative Assembly) sought division of votes.
"The Governor has to be satisfied. He has not recorded his satisfaction that 35 MLAs had sought division on the floor of the House," the court said and added that his reports did not say that the nine rebel Congress MLAs had also sought a division.
It also said that there was "absolute absence of material that would create an apprehension in the mind of the Governor" that President's rule needed to be imposed.
"So how did the government of India arrive at the satisfaction that the 35 stood up? From the Governor's reports?" the court asked.
"The Governor's letter of March 19 to the President does not mention that 35 MLAs had sought division of votes," the bench said. To this, the Centre said that on March 19 the Governor did not have all the details.
The Bench was hearing arguments on a petition filed by the ousted chief minister Harish Rawat and related pleas challenging imposition of President's rule in Uttarakhand.
The high court also questioned whether the allegation that former Chief Minister Harish Rawat was "hitting out" at the nine Congress rebel MLAs would constitute material for imposing Article 356.
The court said the "concern" regarding the rebel MLAs was "absolutely irrelevant and unacceptable".
It also asked "why the secrecy" regarding the Cabinet notes on imposing President's rule in the state and why it was not to be discussed in the court or even be given to the petitioner (Rawat).
Yesterday also during the hearing, the division bench repeatedly maintained that irrespective of allegations of horse-trading and corruption, the only Constitutional way to test majority was to hold a floor test, which "you still have to go for".
The Centre had also faced searching questions from the court which observed that if the reasons for imposition of Article 356 in the instant case, where ruling parties are different at the Centre and in the state, are accepted then it may lead to the central government "watching with a magnifying glass where there is an opportunity for President's rule".
