IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2016

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2016 (Arising from the Final Judgment dated passed by the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 795/2016) IN THE MATTER OF: UNION OF INDIA PETITIONER Versus, SH. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT & ANR. RESPONDENTS I.A. No. /2016 I.A. No. /2016 I.A. No. /2016 Application for permission to file Special Leave to Appeal without certified as well as plain copy of the impugned judgment dated An Application for permission to file the Lengthy Synopsis and List of Dates. An Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgement dated PAPER BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE) ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MRS. ANIL KATIYAR Filed On:

2 INDEX S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGES 1. Office Report On Limitation -A- 2. Listing Performa A1 - A2 3. Synopsis and List of dates B - 4. Impugned Judgment dated passed by the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 795/2016 (Copy of the impugned judgment has not become available. The letter written by the Assistant Solicitor General, Uttarakhand informing the outcome of the writ petition is being placed with prayer for leave to file the copy of the impugned judgment immediately on its becoming available.) 5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit 6. APPENDIX i. Article 356 of the Constitution of India ii. Article 212 of the Constitution of India 7. ANNEXURE- P1 Copy of notification of Proclamation dated issued by the Hon ble President of India. 8. ANNEXURE- P2 Copy of the order dt passed by the ld. Single judge of the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court in WP No. 795(M/S)/ ANNEXURE- P3 Copy of the order dt passed by the ld. Division Bench of the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal No. 64/ I.A. / 2016 Application for permission to file Special Leave to Appeal without certified as well as plain copy of the impugned judgment dated I.A. / 2016 An Application for permission to file the Lengthy Synopsis and List of Dates. 12. I.A. / 2016 An Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgement dated

3 SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES The present Special Leave Petition is being filed against the impugned judgment dated passed by the ld. Division Bench of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 795 (M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr. Vide its impugned judgment dated [pronounced in open court], the Hon ble High Court has been pleased to quash the Proclamation dated issued under Article 356 of the Constitution imposing President s Rule in the State of Uttarakhand. It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of the Hon ble High Court has been pronounced in open Court and a copy thereof has not become available. The petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment. There is an imminent urgency to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment by filing the present SLP. It is due to the urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned judgment, which has not become available. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis of the telephonic conversation and communication received from the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for India at the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. A true copy of

4 the letter dated sent by the Asst. Solicitor General for India is annexed with this Special Leave Petition. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon ble Court for permission to file the present Special Leave Petition without the impugned judgment. The petitioner undertakes to place on record the copy of the impugned judgment immediately on its becoming available. It is further submitted that the present SLP is being filed only on the basis of the telephonic conversation and communication dt of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further seeks leave of this Hon ble Court to alter / modify / add / amend the present SLP with additional and further grounds upon perusing of the impugned judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court. On that basis, it is submitted that after quashing the Proclamation dt , the Hon ble High Court has been pleased to, inter alia, direct as under:- i. Status quo as on , i.e. the date when the impugned Presidential proclamation was issued shall be maintained. ii. Floor test shall be held in the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha on It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment of the Hon ble High Court is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon ble Court and the Hon ble High Courts. The Hon ble High Court has not remained within

5 the permissible limits of judicial review of Presidential proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India as laid down in various judicial pronouncements of this Hon ble Court and the Hon ble High Courts. The impugned judgment, being contrary to the settled principles of law, deserves to be set aside by this Hon ble Court. LIST OF DATES : The 3 rd General Elections were held for the 70- member Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttrakhand : The results of the 3 rd General Election for the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand were announced on The Indian National Congress [INC] emerged as the single largest party with 32 seats in the 70 member Legislative Assembly. The INC formed its government with the help and support of:- i) one (1) MLA from Uttrakhand Kranti Dal, ii) three (3) independent MLAs, and iii) three (3) MLAs from Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). In the said elections, the main opposition party namely the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) got 31 seats. Thereafter, due to vacancies that arose, bye -

6 elections were held in certain constituencies. As on , the party-wise breakup of seats in the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly was as follows:- i) 36 members of Indian National Congress (INC) ii) 28 members of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) iii) 2 members of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) iv) 1 member of Uttarakhand Kranti Dal [P] (UKD [P]) v) 3 independents : The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly had been summoned by the Hon ble Governor for its Budget Session commencing from The address by the Hon ble Governor was delivered at the beginning of the Session on (10.30 a.m. and a.m.) Earlier in the day on , 27 MLAs of the BJP, led by Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition, had submitted a representation to the Secretariat of the Hon ble Governor, inter alia, pointing out therein that on the said day the Appropriation Bill was to be presented before the House. Further, with reference to Rule 296 of the Rules of Procedure of the Uttarakhand Assembly, a demand had been made that division of vote should take place on the Appropriation Bill The Hon ble Governor

7 had been requested to require the Hon ble Speaker and the House to hold a division of vote on the Appropriation Bill , in terms of Rule 296(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly of This representation had been received in the office of the Hon ble Governor at about a.m. on The Hon ble Governor was not in Dehradun. Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition had contacted the Hon ble Governor on phone and informed him of the representation of these 27 MLAs. The Hon ble Governor had instructed his Secretariat to receive the representation of these 27 MLAs and directing further that the said representation of 27 MLAs asking for division of vote on the Appropriation Bill , received in his Secretariat should be forwarded to the Hon ble Speaker. It was also directed that the audio and video recording of the proceedings of the House should also be obtained from the Hon ble Speaker. In accordance with the directions of the Hon ble Governor, the said representation of 27 MLAs of BJP requiring the division of vote on the Appropriation Bill was forwarded by fax

8 to the Hon ble Speaker alongwith a letter dated addressed by the OSD and Secretary to the Hon ble Governor (total 4 pages), at about a.m. on The Hon ble Governor had arrived at Dehradun at (at around about 1.00 p.m. on and had been 1.00 p.m.) apprised of the carrying out of his directions in relation to the representation of 27 MLAs of BJP requiring the division of vote on the Appropriation Bill , which had been forwarded by fax at about a.m At about 2.25 p.m. on , the Hon ble (at about Governor had received another representation dt p.m.) from the Leader of Opposition, inter alia, contending therein that one BJP MLA, Sh. Ganesh Joshi, had been arrested at about 8.45 a.m. from a hotel during a meeting of the BJP Legislative Committee. Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition, had submitted a memorandum dt , to the Hon ble Governor reporting this event and raising a grievance for such an illegal and unconstitutional act in relation to Sh. Joshi and requesting for issuance of appropriate instructions for his participating in the proceedings of the Assembly on This memorandum dt received

9 at about 2.25 p.m. by the Hon ble Governor was directed to be forwarded to the Hon ble Speaker. In accordance with the direction of the Hon ble Governor, this memorandum of Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition regarding the arrest of BJP MLA Sh. Ganesh Joshi alongwith a covering letter dated signed by the OSD and Secretary to the Hon ble Governor, was forwarded to the Hon ble Speaker by fax (2 pages), at 2.53 p.m. on Immediately upon introduction of the (at about Appropriation Bill in the Uttarakhand 7.30 p.m.) Legislative Assembly at about 7.30 p.m. in the evening on , a demand for division of vote was made by 35 MLAs (26 MLAs of BJP and 9 MLAs of Congress) on the floor of the House. At that point of time, only 67 MLAs and the Hon ble Speaker were present in the House. The petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court / Respondent No. 1 herein in the present SLP - was also present. The demand for division of vote by 35 MLAs on the floor of the House had constituted a demand by the majority. It appears that despite receiving the copy of the representation of 27 MLAs demanding for the division of vote in terms of Rule 296(1) with

10 reference to the Appropriation Bill having been forwarded as per the directions of the Hon ble Governor and further despite the same demand having been made by 35 MLAs on the floor of the House (out of total 68 MLAs present in the House), division of vote was not taken / carried out by the Hon ble Speaker. On the contrary, it had been claimed that the Appropriation Bill had been passed by a voice vote at about 7.30 p.m. At about 7.43 p.m. on , the proceedings of the House had been adjourned to by the Hon ble Speaker The Secretariat of the Hon ble Governor, at about (at about p.m. on , had received another p.m.) memorandum signed by the 35 MLAs - including Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition alongwith 34 other MLAs, inter alia, contending that they had met the Hon ble Governor earlier in the day on for division of vote in the House on the Appropriation Bill , however, despite specific demand also having been made on the floor of the House by 35 MLAs for division of vote on the Appropriation Bill , the same had not been taken / carried out. It was contended that the Government had lost the confidence of

11 the House and is conducting itself in an unconstitutional manner. It was also contended that there were 68 MLAs present in the House including the Hon ble Speaker. Out of them, 35 MLAs had opposed the Appropriation Bill and therefore, the said Appropriation Bill had not been passed and the Government is in minority. Along with the above-mentioned memorandum signed by 35 MLAs including Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition and 34 other MLAs [handed over at about p.m. on ], copies of two more resolutions [addressed to the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha] one for removal of the Hon ble Speaker and the other one for the removal of Hon ble Deputy Speaker of the House, had been furnished to the Hon ble Governor. These resolutions had been signed by 35 MLAs A communication / special report dt was sent by the Hon ble Governor to the Hon ble President of India giving his preliminary view on account of events regarding the proceedings of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly on including that the Hon ble Speaker had claimed the passing of the Appropriation Bill by voice vote, finality of such a decision etc. In this

12 communication / special report of the Hon ble Governor dt , the events which had taken place on , inter alia, the direction of the Hon ble Governor to forward the representation of 27 MLAs for division of vote on the Appropriation Bill to the Hon ble Speaker had been reiterated. The memorandum with regard to Sh. Ganesh Joshi was also reiterated. The fact that at about 7.30 p.m. on , a demand for division of vote on the Appropriation Bill had been made on the floor of the House, had also been reiterated. Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition calling up the Hon ble Governor at about 8.00 p.m. and informing him that according to him the Government has fallen, was also incorporated. The fact that 35 MLAs including Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition alongwith 34 MLAs had called upon the Governor at Raj Bhavan and handed over a letter signed by 35 MLAs stating that the Appropriation Bill had not been passed in the House etc., was also incorporated By another communication dt , addressed by the Hon ble Governor to the then Hon ble Chief Minister, the necessity to seek a vote of confidence from the State Legislature at

13 the earliest but not later than having already been conveyed to him, was incorporated Another communication was addressed by the Hon ble Governor to the then Hon ble Chief Minister on reiterating his advice that a vote of confidence be taken at the earliest and that this be done without any delay The Hon ble Governor, on , wrote to the Hon ble President conveying that on 19 th March the then Hon ble Chief Minister had been asked to seek a vote of confidence at the earliest but not later than 28 th March; that the then Chief Minister had subsequently called upon the Governor in the evening and given his version of events when he was once again advised to seek the vote of confidence at the earliest and without any delay; that another letter has been sent to the then Chief Minister on the morning of 20 th March 2016 reiterating the same The Hon ble Governor wrote to the Hon ble President on conveying that the then Chief Minister along with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Smt. Indira Hridyesh had met the Hon ble Governor on the evening of 20 th March The then Hon ble Chief Minister was told that there were reports of law and order problem at the

14 residences of some of the rebel Congress MLAs. The then Hon ble Chief Minister was very firmly advised and in no uncertain terms that the vote of confidence be taken within the next 2-3 days as had been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon ble Governor that it had to be done at the earliest. The then Hon ble Chief Minister expressed his inability in the matter. The then Hon ble Chief Minister expressed his inability to intervene at this stage when the Speaker had already initiated the process. The then Hon ble Chief Minister also claimed that there was no irregularity in the House, at which point he was shown the proceedings of the Assembly where a demand for vote by division was made but was not allowed. The then Hon ble Chief Minister had contended that the decision of the Hon ble Speaker was final in the matter. Smt. Indira Hridyesh was called in by the Hon ble Governor. She raised the issue of No Confidence Resolution against the Hon ble Speaker and Hon ble Deputy Speaker and had said that a 14 days period was essential. Three MLAs of Congress i.e. Sh. Vijay Bahuguna, Sh. Harak Singh Rawat and Smt. Amrita Rawat had submitted a letter to the Hon ble Governor on 20 th March 2016 stating that there was breakdown of

15 constitutional machinery as majority of MLAs have voted against the Money Bill and the defeated Money Bill was claimed to have been passed. In the said letter, an apprehension is also expressed that the erstwhile State Govt. would use the next one week to convert a minority into majority either by horse trading or by disqualification of MLAs. Certain other events had also been reiterated. The Hon ble Governor in his letter dated had also proceeded to state that on the night of 20 th March 2016, the then Hon ble Chief Minister had replied to the Hon ble Governor s letter advising him to seek a vote of confidence, stating that this has been conveyed to the Hon ble Speaker who has informed that the next session of the Assembly will commence on 28 th March 2016 at a.m. The legal issues connected with Article 181 of the constitution in the matter of No Confidence Motion against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are being examined On , a message under Article 175(2) was sent by the Hon ble Governor to the Vidhan Sabha of Uttarakhand. In the said message it was stated that a group of 35 MLAs had visited the

16 Raj Bhawan on and had submitted a Memorandum, inter alia, questioning the status of Appropriation Bill It was urged that despite 35 Members requesting for a voting by division, they were ignored by the Speaker. It was contended that this resulted into denying them their right to vote on the Appropriation Bill. The then Hon ble Chief Minister vide his communication dt , had intimated that the vote of confidence will be sought on , when the Assembly meets at a.m. It had been directed by the Hon ble Governor that the proceedings of the Assembly on shall be conducted peacefully, upholding the spirit of democracy. The results of the voting by division shall be declared soon thereafter. The entire proceedings of the Assembly shall be recorded and videographed and authenticated copy of the video and other records shall be sent to the Governor with the transcript of the proceedings the same day The Hon ble Governor, on , wrote to the Hon ble President conveying that the then Hon ble Chief Minister will be seeking a vote of confidence from the House on , when it meets after the vacation. A message under

17 Article 175(2) has already been sent to the Speaker. Hon ble Governor had called the Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha and given him detailed directions vide his communication dt On a petition of the Chief Whip and Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Smt. Indira Hridyesh, the Speaker had issued show cause notice to 9 Congress MLAs under the Anti Defection Rules of the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. These notices were issued on and were returnable on The Hon ble Governor, on , wrote to the Hon ble President, inter alia, conveying that at a.m. on , a closed cover was received at Raj Bhavan from the office of Sh. Bahuguna. The closed cover had a representation addressed to the Hon ble Governor by Sh. Harak Singh Rawat. The letter also had a pen drive attached with it. The pen drive contained, inter alia, 3 audio conversations and one video recording. The transcript of the conversation in the video was also attached with the representation. In this video, the then Hon ble Chief Minister was clearly visible but the other person in conversation with him (claimed to be one Sh.

18 Umesh Sharma) was not clearly visible/identifiable. The conversation is indicative of monetary and other allurements being discussed. The representation alongwith the pen drive and the transcript was forwarded by the Hon ble Governor to the Hon ble President of India. The contents of the pen drive were being analyzed for their veracity The Hon ble Governor addressed another communication / report to the Hon ble President on Inter alia, the following had been set out therein:- i. The Budget Session had started on with the address of the Governor and a total of 8 sittings had already been held upto ii. It has been reiterated that on , the Appropriation Bill for F.Y was to be passed. When the Appropriation Bill was taken up, a demand for division had been made. iii. Similarly, it has also been reiterated that earlier in the day on , 27 MLAs of the BJP had addressed a representation to the Hon ble Governor requesting for a vote on division of the Appropriation Bill. This

19 representation was forwarded to the Speaker of the Assembly. Directions for audio video recording of the proceedings to the Governor were also conveyed. iv. The fact of memorandum with regard to arrest of Sh. Ganesh Joshi and request for his participation in the proceedings of the House on by the Leader of the Opposition was also reiterated. v. At about 7.30 p.m., as soon as Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition rose demanding a division, the Speaker made an announcement in the prevailing pandemonium that the Appropriation Bill has been passed and thereafter left the Assembly Chamber after adjourning the House for vi. Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition had informed the Hon ble Governor on telephone at about 8.00 p.m. that the Government has fallen and that he was coming to Raj Bhavan with his suupporters. vii. At p.m., 35 MLAs including Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition along with 34 MLAs called upon the Governor and handed over a letter signed by 35 MLAs

20 stating that the Appropriation Bill had not been passed. Since the Appropriation Bill had not been passed, the Government had fallen and needed to be dismissed. There were only 68 members present in the House while 35 were with them and they had all opposed the Appropriation Bill. They also claimed that in addition to these 35 MLAs, they also had support of at least 3 more MLAs viz. Sh. Ganesh Joshi (in police custody), Sh. Bheem Lal Arya of BJP and Sh. Sarwat Karim Ansari (BSP). viii. The Hon ble Speaker had claimed the Appropriation Bill passed by voice vote, finality of such a decision etc. ix. It is also stated that till date i.e. till the date of writing of this communication on , the Appropriation Bill had not been forwarded by the Speaker to the Governor. x. The Hon ble Governor has also stated in this report dated that in the meantime he had also examined the proceedings of the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha of March 18, as conveyed by the Hon ble Speaker under his signature,

21 alongwith the video recording of the relevant time. A perusal of the proceedings had made it clear that at the time of passing of Uttarakhand Appropriation Bill , a demand was made under rule 296(1) for a vote by division, but neither a division took place, nor voting by show of hands, as provided in the rules. The Appropriation Bill was passed in din and chaos without any specific vote in favour or against the Motion getting recorded. While setting out certain other aspects in this communication dt , it had been stated that even though the veracity of the video presented in the pen drive, is yet to be fully established, it is prima facie obvious that plans had been afoot to indulge in horse trading of MLAs and the then Hon ble Chief Minister is party to such machinations. A serious apprehension was also expressed with regard to conduct of the proceedings on It has been stated that in the given situation and the surcharged atmosphere, it is possible that the Assembly proceedings on 28 th March, may unruly, chaotic and violent. During the arguments and in response to

22 a query it was submitted to this Hon ble Court that on , the Central Government (with a covering letter dt signed by the Director in the Secretariat of the Hon ble President) had received a communication dt addressed by the BJP to the Hon ble President, inter alia, submitting therein about the then Hon ble Chief Minister indulging in horse trading in relation to MLAs both belonging to Congress as well as BJP and that MLAs and their family members are being threatened etc. This communication was also part of the original record submitted before the Hon ble High Court on alongwith the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition in the High Court That after the receipt of the above-mentioned report / communication dt from the Hon ble Governor, a note for the Cabinet had been prepared on In the background of various communications / reports received from the Hon ble Governor from onwards, the details about the recent political developments in the State and also the aspects highlighted by the Pen Drive indicating horse trading - had been mentioned therein. Non-holding of the division of

23 vote on the Appropriation Bill , the then Hon ble Chief Minister not acceding to the repeated requests of the Hon ble Governor for securing vote of confidence expeditiously, in order to win over support by allurements etc. one BJP MLA Sh. B.L. Arya had been made the Vice President of Ambedkar Jayanti Samaroh Samiti, Sh. B.L. Arya of BJP remaining absent from the assembly proceedings on were also incorporated in the note for the Cabinet.. Subsequently, on , on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition (UOI), it had been submitted before the Hon ble Court that the statement with regard to disqualification against Sh. B.L. Arya being not dealt with evenly, was a mistake of fact and would not be relevant. The contents of the Pen Drive showing clearly the then Chief Minister in the video and the conversation for monetary and other allurements was also incorporated in the Cabinet Note. The aspect that the defeat of the Appropriation Bill on the floor of the House would have had led to the fall of the Government, the claim of the failed Appropriation Bill having been passed by the voice vote etc. were also included in the said Note. The relevant factors, which had

24 become available on record of the Govt. of India, including that the failed Appropriation Bill had been claimed to have been passed amounting to continuation of Government not in accordance with and contrary to the Constitution of India was also mentioned. The material becoming available to the Government was also placed before the Cabinet for approval of the recommendation to the Hon ble President for proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India on On , the recommendation of the Cabinet was forwarded to the Hon ble President and had been approved by the Hon ble President on On , at about 4.30 p.m. the proclamation issued by the Hon ble President under Article 356 of the Constitution, was notified vide a gazette notification. A copy of the gazette notification of Presidential Proclamation dated is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE - P1. (Page to ) Upon issuance of notification under Article 356 on , the Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand had also issued a notification on itself whereby the entire Council of Ministers of the erstwhile State

25 Govt. were relieved from the Government. However this order had not been filed with the writ petition and also there was no challenge to the same The audio and video recordings which had become available to the Govt. on had been forwarded to the CFSL on the same day. On , the CFSL later in the day and after the decision on the Proclamation, had forwarded its report dt certifying that the examination of audio and video files had disclosed that the audio recordings of the files are in continuity and not containing any signs of editing / tampering. It has further been found and certified by the CFSL that video and audio file is also in continuity and free from editing / morphing On , the Hon ble Governor had sent another report to the Hon ble President, inter alia, stating that the voting on the Appropriation Bill did not take place on The Appropriation Bill was never sent by the Hon ble Speaker to the Hon ble Governor for assent, before the issuance of notification under Article 356 of the Constitution of India on The Hon ble Governor has stated that the Appropriation Bill from the

26 Hon ble Speaker was received only on the when the Assembly has already been suspended vide notification dated issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. The Hon ble Governor has also stated that it has not been possible for him to give assent to the Bill. Having regard to the fact of closure of the financial year on 31 st March, there is almost an emergency situation and accordingly taking recourse to the procedure provided in Article 357 (1)(c), the Vote on Account for 4 months, i.e. from 1 st April to 31 st July 2016, was sent by the Hon ble Governor for authorization by the Hon ble President. It becomes clear that since the Hon ble Speaker had also understood that any claim for passing of the Appropriation Bill, when it had failed would be void and a nullity, the said Appropriation Bill had not been forwarded to the Hon ble Governor before the issuance of the notification under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. An Appropriation Bill, if it is legally and validly passed, cannot be kept back and is required to be forwarded immediately to the Hon ble Governor. In the present case, it is only after the proclamation under Article 356 was

27 notified on , the Hon ble Governor has stated in his report dated that he had received the Appropriation Bill on It is respectfully submitted that the claim - of passing of the Appropriation Bill , when it had failed as having stood established by documentary evidence, is void ab initio, nullity having no existence in the eyes of law : The erstwhile Chief Minister of the State of Uttarakhand, i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.795 of 2016 [M/s] dated praying for, inter alia, issuance of appropriate Writ quashing the Proclamation dated issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India bearing F. No.V/11013/2/2016-CSR.I and the consequent Notification thereof. Respondent No.1 further prayed for a direction for restoring the Government of Indian National Congress (INC) headed by Respondent No.1 along with his Council of Ministers to office and revive and reactivate the third Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly. Along with the aforesaid writ petition, the Respondent No.1 also made an application for

28 stay of the proclamation dated and also prayed for an appropriate direction in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Jagdambika Pal (1999) 9 SCC 95 for holding a floor test in order to prove the majority of the Respondent No.1 on the Floor of the House. It is pertinent to note that the said writ petition along with application for interim relief / stay was mentioned by the Counsel of Respondent No.1 for urgent listing before the Hon'ble Uttarakhand Court. The said writ petition was accordingly taken up by the Hon ble High Court at about pm on when the counsels for the petitioner argued on the application for interim stay / relief for the entire day : On , counsel for the Petitioner Union of India appeared before the Hon ble High Court, and it was categorically submitted on behalf of Union of India that they would deserve an opportunity to file its counter affidavit and had further submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Hon ble Court, i. even before issuing notice, opportunity was required to be granted to the Central Government

29 to file an affidavit to demonstrate that no prima facie case had been made out by the writ petitioner. ii. there was no permissibility for granting any interim relief in respect of the said Proclamation on the ground that as per the authoritative dicta of the Hon'ble 9 Judges Bench of this Hon'ble Court laid down in the case of SR Bommai vs UOI 1994 [3] SCC 1 it would be wholly impermissible either to interdict the issuance of proclamation and / or its operation till the final verdict on its validity is pronounced. It was further submitted that as per the mandatory procedure laid down by this Hon ble Court, following the binding principle laid down in S.R.Bommai (supra), vide orders dated and passed by this Hon ble Court in the matter of Rameshwar Prasad vs UOI [W.P. (c) No.257/2005], it was incumbent upon the Hon'ble High Court to, even before issuing notice in the matter, require the Central Government to file an affidavit to bring on record its objections that the writ petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of making out the very strong prima facie case as required in a challenge to an Article 356

30 Proclamation. It was submitted that at that stage, neither would the Court issue any notice before granting opportunity to the Central Government to file its counter affidavit, nor would it be permissible to pass any interim order interdicting the issuance and / or operation of the Presidential Proclamation. Written Submissions were also prepared and submitted on behalf of the Union of India at the time of hearing and submitted before the Hon ble High Court on (on account of a typographical error, typed as dated instead of ) : On 29 th March 2016 itself, the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital disposed of the application for interim relief / stay filed by Respondent No.1 herein in Writ Petition No. 795 (M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr. - and directing, inter alia, that the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly be convened on for putting the Vote of Confidence to floor test, where disqualified MLAs would also participate and that the result of the vote of confidence shall be kept in a sealed cover, and that the votes of the

31 disqualified Member shall be kept separately - thereby interdicting with the Presidential Proclamation dated issued by the Hon ble President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which is wholly impermissible in view of the authoritative dicta propounded by this Hon ble Court in the case of S.R. Bommai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1994) 3 SCC 1. Copy of the order date passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P2. (Page to ). It was thereafter i.e. subsequently when the opportunity for filing the detailed counter affidavit had been granted that it was found that gross misstatements, suppression of material facts to mislead the Hon ble Court for securing an interim order, had been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition had deserved dismissal at the threshold itself In exercise of powers under Article 85(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Hon ble President had been pleased to prorogue the Lok Sabha In exercise of powers under Article 85(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the Hon ble President had been pleased to prorogue the Rajya Sabha.

32 In the morning of , an appeal, by and on behalf of Union of India being Special Appeal No. 64 of 2016, was filed before the Hon ble High Court at Nainital, impugning the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge on Another appeal being Special Appeal No. 63 of 2016 was also filed by Smt. Indira Hridayesh, impugning the Ld. Single Judge s order dated These two Appeals were mentioned before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court at am for urgent listing and hearing. Thereafter, the appeals were taken up by the Ld. Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court at pm. After the counsel for all parties had been heard by the Ld. Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court at considerable length, on a suggestion made on behalf of Union of India which was agreed to by all parties, the Ld. Division Bench of the Hon ble High Court passed its order dt , inter alia, withdrawing the writ petition (WPMS No. 795 of 2016) to itself so that the matter may be finally disposed of and

33 the order dated passed by the Ld. Single Judge was directed to be put in abeyance till Copy of the order date passed by the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P3. (Page to ) Having regard to the report / communication of the Hon ble Governor dt , it was observed that an emergent situation had arisen since, in the absence of a validly passed Appropriation Bill becoming law, the administration of State of Uttarakhand would have been unable to appropriate any funds from the Consolidated Fund of the State with effect from In order to take immediate action for the purpose of timely compliance of the financial business of the State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand Appropriation (Vote on Account) Ordinance 2016 was promulgated by the Hon ble President of India on It was with a view to prevent an economic crisis / chaos in the State of Uttarakhand Another Writ Petition being W.P. 856 of 2016, was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Hon ble

34 Uttarakhand High Court, praying for, inter alia, quashing of the promulgation of the Ordinance dated The Hon ble High Court had fixed a schedule for filing of counter affidavit by the Respondents in WP No. 795/2016 by In complete compliance and in full cooperation with the schedule fixed by the Hon ble High Court, the Respondent No. 1 had filed its counter affidavit on and had simultaneously on the same day, had tendered in a sealed envelope, the original file of the Govt. of India before the Hon ble High Court with the prayer that the documents contained therein would not deserve to be shared with the petitioner before the Hon ble High Court. The respondent had filed its rejoinder affidavit on And Detailed oral arguments were submitted on behalf of Respondent No.1 (Petitioner before the Hon ble High Court) on and At about 3.30 p.m. on , a fresh application on behalf of Respondent No.1 was presented before the Hon ble High Court with the prayer that in the event, during the recess of the Hon ble High Court from till

35 , a decision is taken to revoke the Presidential Proclamation then the Hon ble Governor must invite only the petitioner in the writ petition to prove majority and will not invite BJP to form the govt. The maintainability of this application was vehemently opposed on behalf of Union of India, inter alia, on the ground that the Hon ble Governor is not a party to the writ petition and in any case no notice or direction could be issued against the Hon ble Governor and it was also submitted that there would not be any permissibility for the Hon ble Court to pass any order interjecting the constitutional authorities and also the process of political democracy to have its full action and full play in accordance with the scheme of the Constitution. However, when the matter was reaching towards the end of the hearing on , a statement had been made, by the ld. Attorney General of India - on behalf of Union of India that the Hon ble High Court would be informed in case any action becomes necessary to be taken by the Govt. of India before i.e. till the recess of the Court and when the Court was to

36 commence the hearing of the arguments of the ld. Attorney General of India on , , Detailed oral arguments were submitted before the Hon ble High Court on behalf of Union of India on , and It is submitted that the ld. Attorney General of India had made his submissions on and and had taken leave of the Hon ble Court on the conclusion of his arguments. Till this time of the ld. Attorney General of India leaving the Court on , there was no mention of any kind whatsoever on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court, with regard to the Statement made by the ld. Attorney General of India on , as submitted above On , it was submitted on behalf of the Union of India before the Hon ble High Court that the statement which had been made on (that if any action would be required to be taken by the Union of India during the recess of the Hon ble High Court, the same would be informed to the Hon ble Court) was to operate only till the resumption of Court proceedings on On , vide its impugned

37 judgment [pronounced in open court], it has been informed that the Hon ble High Court has been pleased to quash the Proclamation dated issued by the Hon ble President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution. The Hon ble High Court, inter alia, directed as under:- i. Status quo as on , i.e. the date when the impugned Presidential proclamation was issued shall be maintained. ii. Floor test shall be held in the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha on It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment of the Hon ble High Court is contrary to the settled principles of law laid down by this Hon ble Court and the Hon ble High Courts. The Hon ble High Court has exceeded the limited scope of judicial review of Presidential proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India as laid down in various judicial pronouncements of this Hon ble Court and the Hon ble High Courts. The impugned judgment, being contrary to the settled principles of law, deserves to be set aside by this Hon ble Court. It is humbly submitted that the impugned

38 judgment of the Hon ble High Court has been pronounced in open Court and a copy thereof has not become available. The petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment. There is an imminent urgency to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment by filing the present SLP. It is due to the urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned judgment, which has not become available. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis of the telephonic conversation and communication received from the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for India at the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. Copy of the letter dated sent by the Asst. Solicitor General for India is placed alongwith the present Special Leave Petition. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon ble Court for permission to file the present Special Leave Petition without the impugned judgment. The petitioner undertakes to place on record the copy of the impugned judgment immediately on

39 its becoming available. It is further submitted that the present SLP is being filed only on the basis of the communication dt of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further seeks leave of this Hon ble Court to alter / modify / add / amend the present SLP with additional and further grounds upon perusing of the impugned judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court : Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

40 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India) (With prayer for Interim Relief) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2016 POSITION OF PARTIES In the Hon ble High Court In this Hon ble Court BETWEEN: Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block New Delhi Respondent No. 1 Petitioner Versus, 1. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat s/o Late Rajendra Singh Rawat r/o Bijapur Guest House Garhi Cantt Dehradun Dehradun Petitioner Contesting Respondent 2. State of Uttarakhand Through Chief Secretary Secretariat, 4 Subhash Road Dehradun Uttarakhand Respondent No. 2 Proforma Respondent To The Hon ble Chief Justice of India And His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner above named

41 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1.1 The present Special Leave Petition is being filed against the impugned final judgment dated passed by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 795 (M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr. 1.2 Vide the impugned judgment dated , the Hon ble High Court has erroneously allowed the writ petition [being W.P. No. 795 of 2016] - and as informed, the Hon ble High Court has been pleased to, inter alia, quash the Presidential Proclamation dated issued by the Hon ble President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. 1.3 It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of the Hon ble High Court has been pronounced in open Court and a copy thereof has not become available. The petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment. There is an imminent urgency to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment by filing the present SLP. It is due to the urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned judgment, which has not become available. The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis of the

42 telephonic conversation and communication received from the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for India at the Hon ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. Copy of the letter dated sent by the Asst. Solicitor General for India has been placed alongwith the present SLP. The petitioner craves leave of this Hon ble Court for permission to file the present Special Leave Petition without the impugned judgment. The petitioner undertakes to place on record the copy of the impugned judgment immediately on its becoming available. It is further submitted that the present SLP is being filed only on the basis of the telephonic conversation and communication dt of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further seeks leave of this Hon ble Court to alter / modify / add / amend the present SLP with additional and further grounds upon perusing of the impugned judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court. It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned judgment dt is unsustainable in law, being contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Hon ble Court and the Hon ble High Courts, and therefore the impugned judgment would deserve to be set aside by this Hon ble Court.

43 2. QUESTIONS OF LAW 2.1 Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could entertain any writ petition wherein it had been demonstrated, ex facie, that the writ petitioner had indulged in making false statements in the writ petition and also suppression of material facts, twisting of material facts only with a view to mislead the Hon ble Court and securing for itself an interim order? 2.2 Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having regard to the established fact demonstrating, ex facie, that the writ petitioner had indulged in making false statements in the writ petition and also suppression of material facts, twisting of material facts only with a view to mislead the Hon ble Court and securing for itself an interim order was not obliged to dismiss the writ petition at the threshold itself? 2.3 Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was justified and permitted under the constitutional scheme to judicially review the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers and the Hon ble President arrived at on the basis of the relevant material - under Article 356 of the Constitution of India? 2.4 Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was justified and permitted under the constitutional scheme to enter into the aspect of sufficiency and authenticity of the material which was

44 placed before the Council of Minister and the Hon ble President for arriving at the satisfaction for imposition of Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of India? 2.5 Whether the Hon ble High Court has failed to appreciate the limited scope of judicial review which is available in relation to Presidential Proclamations issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India as laid down by this Hon ble Court in various judicial pronouncements? 2.6 Whether the impugned order passed by the Hon ble High Court is completely unsustainable in law, being contrary to the law laid down by this Hon ble Court in various pronouncements, including the judgment of this Hon ble Court in S.R.Bommai (supra)? 3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2) The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment before this Hon ble Court. 4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6 The Annexures produced along with Special Leave Petition are true copies of the records of the Courts below and forms part of the record of the Courts below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this Petition.