UNION OF INDIA V. HARISH RAWAT and Anr.

2016 (as decided in may )

FACTS- In state of Uttarakhand in march 2016 political instability was reported. The govt. of Indian
National Congress lead by CM Harish Rawat was alleged to have fallen due to want of majority in the
house.

1. On 18.03.2016 appropriation bill for the year 2016-17 was passed by voice vote.
Immediately after the passing of the bill a delegation of 35 MLAs (BJP=26 and CONG=9)
called upon Governor Dr K.K paul and submitted a memorandum stating that the bill was
passed in violation of rules and demand for division by opposition was not taken into
consideration by speaker and the govt don’t enjoy majority of the house.

2. Governor sent MESSAGE UNDER ARTICLE 175(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

that the govt must face floor test at earliest but not later than 28.03.2016
3. Meanwhile Secretary of Uttrakhand Vidhan Sabha notified the members of the assembly that
the next sitting of session would be held on 28.03.2016.
4. In the meantime 9 rebel MLAs of cong filed writ petition before HC for postponement of
disqualification proceeding under 10 schedule (for defection).
5. On 26.03.2016 a video was published and publically made available in which a sting
operation was done , in the video CM was alleged to have talked about horse trading of
MLAs and other allurements to save his govt.
6. In central cabinet meeting held on intervening night of 26-27 March proposal to impose
article 356 in the state was sent to the president.
7. The president of india on 27.03.2016 imposed Article 356 and dismissed the govt. and
imposed president rule. Just a day before floor test.
8. Aggrieved by the order of president CM filed writ petition before high court ,the high court
heavily relied on S.R BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA 1994, quashed the order of the
president and restored the govt. on 22 april 2016
9. The UOI filed special leave petition under article 136 to challenge the order of the HC.

CONTENTIONS on behalf of the respondent

1. Emergency provision under article 356 are extraordinary in nature and must be used
rarely and circumspectly
2. The order was intended to restrain the speaker from exercising his power under anti
defection law to initiate action against rebel MLAs of ruling party.
3. Order under 356 is open for judicial review as provided in SR BOMMAI case.

CONTENTIONS on behalf of the petitioner

1. Shri Parasaran appearing for UOI, he contended there’s difference in nature and
scope of power of judicial review in administrative law and constitutional law. The
scope of judicial review in constitutional law extends only to preventing actions
which are unconstitutional and this Proclamation is not unconstitutional.
2. The Appropriation bill was passed unconstitutionally and when govt lost its majority
on 18.03.2016 it was unconstitutional to carry forward a minority govt.
3. And a CD was produced before the court of sting operation relating to CM Harish
Rawat and there was apprehension of horse trading.
4. The presidential order under article 356 is justified.

ISSUES BEFORE COURT

1.When can it be said that a situation has arisen in which the state government
cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of constitution?
2.Whether the UOI have Mala fide intention or not ?or is using power
unconstitutionally?

DECISION of the supreme court

The SC retracing the constitution bench judgement in SR BOMMAI CASE and taking
both parties in confidence passed order dated 6 May 2016. in which
(1) A Special Session of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly be summoned/convened
on 10th May, 2016, commencing 11.00 a.m.
(2) The only agenda in the Assembly would be the Vote of Confidence sought by the
respondent No.1, namely, Shri Harish Singh Rawat.
(3) Apart from the said agenda, nothing else shall be discussed in the Assembly.
(4) The proceedings in the Assembly are expected to be absolutely peaceful and
without any disturbance. This Court expects that all the Members and all concerned
with the affairs of the Assembly shall abide by the same in letter and spirit.
(5) The Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand,
shall see that all the qualified Members of the Legislative Assembly, freely, safely
and securely attend the Assembly and no interference or hindrance is caused by
anyone therein.
(6) Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel, being assisted by Mr. Gaurav
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, shall convey it to
the Chief Secretary and the Director General of the Police of the State of
Uttarakhand so that the order is SLP(C) 11567/16 6 carried out as directed herein-
above, because it is the duty of the State and its high officials to take care to do so.
(7) The Assembly Session shall commence at 11.00 a.m. for the singular agenda, that
is, the floor test of the Assembly and shall be over by 1.00 p.m.
(8) On the Confidence Motion having been put, a division of the House shall take
place and the Members who are inclined to vote in favour of the Motion, shall sit on
the one wing/side and the others who are against the Motion, shall sit on the other
wing/side.
(9) The Principal Secretary, Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand, shall
see to it that the voting is appositely done and recorded.
(10) The Members voting in favour of the Motion shall singularly vote by raising their
hands one by one and that will be counted by the Principal Secretary, Legislative
Assembly. Similar procedure shall be adopted while the Members voting against the
Motion.
(11) The entire proceedings shall be video-graphed and the video recording shall be
placed before this Court so that it can be perused by this Court, if required.
(12) The result of the voting shall be placed before this Court at 10.30 a.m. on 11th
May, 2016, in a sealed cover.

AFTERMATH
1.The respondent , Harish Rawat obtained 33 votes in the house of 61
NOTE~Uttarakhand have the house of 70 elected plus one nominated anglo indian.
In this case out of 70 voting members 9 rebel MLAs were disqualified which brought
the strength of house to 61 and 31 votes were needed by respondent but he
managed 33 and saved his govt.

2. On the bigger issues framed in this case which are specifically mentioned above
the decision of the Supreme court is yet to come and matter is pending.

ARTICLES INVOLVED
A) 356
B) 175
C) 74

CASE LAWS
S.R BOMMAI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1994 SC