President's rule in Arunachal a matter of grave seriousness: SC

NEW DELHI: A decade after faulting the UPA government's decision to impose President's rule in Bihar, the Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine the legality of yet another instance of alleged misuse of power under Article 356 of the Constitution, this time by the NDA government in imposing central rule in Arunachal Pradesh.
The bench said imposition of central rule in Arunachal was a "matter of grave seriousness" and sought the Centre's response by Friday to a Congress petition questioning alleged misuse of Article 356.
The bench also sought a copy of governor J P Rajkhowa's report, which led to the President issuing the notification keeping the assembly in suspended animation and appointing two advisers to the governor. The next hearing is on Monday. It told the attorney general to intimate the date on which the governor's 'all important' report was sent to the government.
In doing so, during a dramatic hearing in a jam-packed courtroom, a five-judge constitution bench comprising Justices J S Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, P C Ghose and N V Ramana brushed aside as "mere technical objections" attorney general Mukul Rohatgi's preliminary argument that Congress had not even challenged the presidential proclamation imposing central rule in its petition. "What reply do I file?" the A-G asked.
The bench, however, appeared to agree with the A-G by allowing amendment of the petition filed by Congress's chief whip in Arunachal, to include a challenge to President's rule.
Right at the beginning of the hearing, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, with Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan alongside him, told the court that nearly a week-and-a-half ago, the governor's counsel Harish Salve had informed the court that no precipitative action would be taken by the head of the state. "How has he recommended President's rule in the state without informing the court?" asked Nariman. He said the central government should have awaited the apex court's verdict in the two pending petitions.
One petition had challenged the governor's power to convene the assembly without the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the CM. During that extraordinary assembly session conducted by the deputy Speaker with the help of 21 rebel Congress MLAs and 11 BJP MLAs, the disqualification of 14 of the 21 rebel MLAs was rescinded.
The constitution bench brushed aside as 'mere technical objections' attorney general Mukul Rohatgi's preliminary argument that Congress had not even challenged the presidential proclamation imposing central rule in its petition.