Uttarakhand crisis: Should consider trust vote for Rawat govt, SC to Centre

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to seek instruction on having a floor test in Uttarakhand where a major power tussle is underway between the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Centre and the Congress.

The apex court asked the Attorney General that there should be a floor test in the Uttarakhand Assembly under its supervision in view of the "Rameshwar judgement" and also asked the Centre to think about it.

Meanwhile, the hearing on the Centre's plea against Uttarakhand High Court's order revoking President's rule in the state has been adjourned for tomorrow.

A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, which had fixed the hearing on the plea at 2 pm today, took up the matter at 10.30 am to apprise the parties concerned that it may not take up the case today as Justice Singh would be a part of another bench hearing matters related to medical entrance exams at 2 pm.

During the brief hearing, the bench repeated its suggestion that the Centre should consider holding a floor test in the Assembly under its supervision to ascertain the actual situation. It asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to take instruction on the issue and apprise it about the same tomorrow.

The apex court had on April 22 stayed till April 27 the judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court quashing imposition of President's rule, giving a new turn to the political drama in the state by restoring central rule there.

On April 27, it had extended the stay till further orders and had also framed seven questions while giving the liberty to the AG to include other questions the government would like to be addressed.

"Whether the Governor could have sent the message in the present manner under Article 175 (2) for conducting floor test," the bench had said in its first question.

It had further asked whether the disqualification of MLAs by the Speaker is a "relevant issue" for the purposes of invoking President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Referring to constitutional scheme that the Assembly proceedings are beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, the apex court had also asked whether the proceedings of the House can be considered for invoking President's rule.

Dealing with the claim and counter claim with regard to the fate of the Appropriation Bill in the Uttarakhand Assembly, it had said that the next question is as to when the President's role comes into the picture.

"Can the delay in the floor test be a ground for proclamation of the President's rule," it had also asked.