Uttarakhand HC judgement quashing President's Rule 'serious miscarriage of justice': Centre to SC
Uttarakhand HC said the imposition of President's rule was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: The Centre on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Uttarakhand High Court's order quashing the proclamation of President's rule in the state deserved to be set aside and quashed by orders of the apex court.
While filing a petition in the apex court, the government said, “The impugned judgement resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, it deserves to be set aside.”
The plea further said that gross injustice and irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the petitioner if the impugned judgement of HC not stayed.
Meanwhile, the SC today commenced its hearing on Centre's plea against Uttarakhand HC quashing quashing imposition of President's rule in the state.
The apex court bench hearing Centre's plea is headed by Justice Deepak Misra.
Earlier today, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter before the SC bench headed by Justice Deepak Mishra, seeking a stay on the verdict, which has revived the Congress government headed by Rawat.
Registrar General of the top court will take instruction from Chief Justice of India TS Thakur on listing of the matter.
Meanwhile, Union Minister M Venkaiah Naidu today said the central government is very clear that there was a constitutional breakdown in Uttarakhand because the Appropriation Bill was not passed in the Assembly.
The Uttarakhand HC bench headed by Chief Justice KM Joseph came down heavily on the Bharatiya Janata Party led government at the Centre for its March 27 move to dismiss Rawat under the much-contested article 356 that empowers the union cabinet to impose President's Rule in a state.
He said the imposition of President's rule was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
The case "brings to the fore a situation where 356 has been used contrary to the law", said the bench of Chief Justice and Justice VK Bist, adding the article should only be used as a last resort.
"The proclamation of March 27 stands quashed," said the court in the "status quo ante" order, meaning the previously existing state of affairs was being restored.