HC asks Centre to explain the haste in imposing President's Rule in Uttarakhand
The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday questioned the haste shown by the Centre in imposing President's rule in the Congress-ruled state when the date for floor test was already decided.
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday questioned the haste shown by the Centre in imposing President's rule in the Congress-ruled state when the date for floor test was already decided.
The high court asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to explain the reason for the hurry to impose President's Rule when the date of floor test was given on March 28.
The high court, however, said that floor test is the best test and correct arena to resolve a political crisis. What kind of a message is the Center sending? the high court asked the Attorney General.
The court also adjourned the hearing till 2 pm. The court made these observations after the Centre moved the Uttarakhand High Court challenging an interim order by a single bench directing a floor test in the Assembly on March 31, days after President's Rule was imposed in the state.
A petition in this regard was mentioned before a division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice KM Joseph and Justice VK Bisht by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of the central government.
The petition sought clarity on whether the floor test can be held in the state Assembly after the promulgation of President's Rule when the House is in suspended animation.
After a two-day hearing on a writ petition challenging the imposition of President's Rule in the state, the single judge bench of Justice UC Dhyani in an interim order yesterday directed a floor test in the Assembly on March 31 and allowed even the nine disqualified rebel MLAs of the Congress to vote during the exercise.
Filed by Chief Minister Harish Rawat through his counsel and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the writ petition has the Union of India as the respondent.