HC order pushed boundaries
The Uttarakhand High Court’s verdict quashing the President’s rule in the state comes as a major embarrassment for the NDA government that rushed to the Supreme Court for succour on Friday.
Quashing the March 27 proclamation, a division bench headed by Uttarakhand HC Chief Justice, KM Joseph, said the imposition of the President’s rule under Art 356 of the Constitution was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It ordered the ousted chief minister to prove his government’s majority in the House on April 29.
The HC’s verdict is unprecedented as it was the first time that a dismissed government was reinstated. Previous judicial orders only set aside the President’s rule but eschewed from reviving dismissed governments, mainly because the delayed verdict hardly left any scope for such relief.
In the SR Bommai case, a ninejudge SC bench in 1994 ruled that if the court strikes down the President’s rule, it has the power to restore the dismissed government and revive the assembly. But the SC could not revive the assemblies in Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland as fresh elections had
THE HC’S VERDICT IS UNPRECEDENTED AS IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT A DISMISSED GOVERNMENT WAS REINSTATED
already been held. Even in the infamous Bihar case (Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India), the SC in January 2006 exercised restraint and stopped at quashing the notification imposing President’s rule as fresh elections had already been notified in the state.
The Uttarakhand HC’s verdict is a landmark also for the fact that it was delivered in time. Courts have dealt with President’s rule related cases in a rather relaxed manner, giving ample time to political parties to manipulate number in the House. Irrespective of their political ideology governments have used and missed Article 356. But the SC’s verdict in the SR Bommai case restricted the scope for its misuse to a great extent.
While holding that courts can’t question the Union cabinet’s advice to the President, the SC said they can question the grounds on which conclusion regarding a breakdown of constitutional machinery is reached.
It also said the use of Article 356 was justified only when there was a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not that of administrative machinery.
It further narrowed down the scope for misuse of President’s rule in January 2006 by quashing the di ssolution of Bihar assembly. It held that the Governor’ s report could not be taken at face value — “gospel truth” — and must be verified by the Cabinet before being used as the basis for imposing President’s rule.
On Friday, the SC stayed the Uttarakhand high court’s order until April 27, primarily for its nonavailability. But it is certainly a historic verdict for it pushes the boundary and expands the scope of judicial review of Article 356, further limiting its misuse.