Dehradun: The Narendra Modi government on Thursday suffered a stunning setback with Uttarakhand High Court quashing President's rule in the hill state and directing ousted chief minister Harish Rawat to prove his majority in a floor test on April 29.
The high court also upheld the disqualification of nine dissident Congress legislators, saying they have to pay the price for the "constitutional sin" of defection. This will bring down the effective strength of the House to 61 from 70, making Rawat's job easier because he will now need 31 MLAs to prove his majority compared with 36 earlier.
The Centre has decided to move the Supreme Court today for a stay. But usually the top court does not interfere with an interim ruling and prefers to wait for the final judgment, which the high court has reserved for later. Moreover, the high court has gone by the parameters laid down in the historic S.R. Bommai judgment of 1994, delivered by a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court.
Coming down heavily on the Centre, the high court said: "The soul of the matter is whether it is open to the central government to get rid of state governments, supplant or uproot the democratically elected government, introduce chaos, undermine confidence of the little man who stands with a white paper to cast his vote braving the snow, heat and rain.
"We are of the view that be it suspension or dissolution, the effect is toppling of a democratically elected government. It breeds cynicism in the hearts of citizens who participate in the democratic system and also undermines democracy and foundation of federalism."
The verdict is the first big blow to Modi and BJP president Amit Shah on a matter of constitutional propriety in their two years in power at the Centre.
Rawat had approached the court after his government was dismissed on March 27, a day before he was scheduled to face a trust vote in the Assembly. The two-judge bench of Chief Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice V.K. Bist on Thursday accepted Rawat's contention that if no interim order was passed, the Centre would prop an alternative government with the help of Congress dissidents. While the complete judgment is likely to be issued in the next fortnight, the court in an interim direction quashed central rule and asked Rawat to prove his majority on April 29.
"What is at stake here is not just the petitioner's government but democracy at large," the bench said.
The material considered for imposing President's rule "has been found wanting", it said. "The present case... brings to the fore a situation where 356 has been used contrary to the law laid down by the apex court."
The court said that "the issue must be seen here on a larger canvas as India is a union of states with the Centre and states both sovereign in their respective spheres".
"One thing is clear that 356 has to be used as a last resort with greatest care," it said. "There must be material. Material must be verified. Any material will not suffice. It has to be relevant material. Satisfaction has to be subjective satisfaction of cabinet and not the President. Material considered for imposing Article 356 cannot be irrelevant or extraneous. It cannot be malafide. Actions of public figure at any level must be bonafide. Therefore, action under 356 is liable to be visited with invalidation if done with malafide."
During the arguments preceding the order, the high court castigated the Modi government saying it had been deeply "pained" by its actions in imposing President's rule and attempting to revoke it for the formation of an alternative government while the case was being heard.
"If you recall 356 and call someone else to form a government, what else would it be other than travesty of justice," the bench said. "Otherwise you can do this in every state. Impose President's rule for 10-15 days and then ask someone else to take oath. More than angry, we are pained that you are behaving like this. That the highest authority - government of India - behaves like this. How can you think of playing with the court?"
The observation came after the Centre's counsel said he could not give an undertaking that President's rule would not be revoked until the verdict.
Chief Justice Joseph also turned down the Centre's plea for a stay on the order to enable it to approach the Supreme Court. "We won't stay our own judgment. You can go to the Supreme Court and get a stay," the bench said.
"There is no President's rule now. The government has revived. We had told you to give us time (to write the verdict). But you forced us to pronounce it today. We had said we will not allow (ourselves) to be taken for a ride. We have no objection to being overruled. You go to the Supreme Court and get it stayed," the court said.
The Congress is expected to file a caveat in the Supreme Court, urging it not to pass any order on the Centre's plea without hearing chief minister Rawat.