Supreme Court Proposes Floor Test In Uttarakhand Under Its Supervision

floor test in uttarakhand
Uttarakhand has been under President’s rule since March 27

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to make its point clear on the floor test in Uttarakhand. The court has proposed to conduct a floor test in the state under its supervision. This was done as to ascertain the strength of deposed Chief Minister Harish Rawat. The state is under President’s rule since March 27.

The question was posed to the Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi by a bench comprising of Justices Dipak Mishra and Shiva Kirti. The hearing of the plea was fixed at 2 pm, but the matter was taken at 10.30 am to apprise the parties concerned about the schedule of judges. Attorney General was asked to take instruction on the same from the government, before adjourning the matter. The bench proposed, “In view of the judgement why not have a floor test under our supervision.”

The President’s rule was imposed on the state after Harish Rawat’s government reduced to minority on March 18 when its nine MLAs moved against the appropriation bill tabled in the assembly. Later the MLAs were disqualified from the assembly by speaker. During the brief hearing, the bench laid importance and suggested the Centre that they should consider holding a floor test in the Assembly. The floor test should take place under their supervision, it added.

The President’s rule imposed in the state was quashed by Uttarakhand High Court, but the apex court stayed the judgement till April 27. Later, on April 27, the court again extended the stay till further orders. And the President’s rule continued again.

The court had also asked whether the disqualification of the MLAs by the speaker is a relevant issue or not for invoking President’s rule in a state.

The earlier hearing that took place, in which Rohatgi had given reasons as to why the imposition of the President’s rule is justified. He said that there had been allegations of political horse trading, corruption and failure of the constitutional machinery after the appropriation bill for its annual budget failed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *