NAINITAL: The Uttarakhand High Court today asked the Centre whether it was not "totally extraneous" for the Union Government to be concerned over the disqualification of nine rebel MLAs and to "interfere" in the affairs of the state which has to be done only in "extraordinary instances".
"What is passing through our mind is, is it the lookout of the Central government as to what would have happened on March 28 (when floor test was to be held) in view of the changed composition and in view of the nine ousted MLAs..?
"Will it not be totally extraneous for Central government, which is ruled by another political party, to be concerned by changed composition...," a bench of Chief Justice K M Joseph and Justice V K Bist asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi.
The bench was hearing a writ petition of the ousted Chief Minister Harish Rawat plea challenging imposition of President's rule on March 26.
The bench said it (the demand for division of votes in the Assembly when appropriation Bill was introduced) was only a "solitary instance" and added "this is what is colouring our minds. Can one solitary instance topple a democratically- elected government in its fourth-fifth year... root of the matter is you are cutting at root of democracy".
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi contended that the Speaker's decision to not allow 35 MLAs to vote on their demand for division, when the money bill was introduced, amounted to "destroying democracy" as the 35 constituted the majority view.
He alleged that former Chief Minister Harish Rawat and the Speaker were "in cahoots" and "scuttled the demand for division".
He claimed that since no vote was held, the money bill had failed and this amounted to the state government having fallen on March 18.
The AG further said that there has been "twisting of facts to show division occurred after passage of Bill".
"They presented a picture that article 356 was imposed after appropriation bill was passed," he said and added that no interim order would have been passed by the single judge if these facts had been placed before him.
Regarding the Speaker's decision, the AG said the Speaker "cannot defy majority view of the house and there is no protection under the law for that".
He said the Speaker has given no reason for ignoring the demand for division adding that not allowing the MLAs to vote was "a serious blow to democracy".
The AG also said "everyday when there is a contest at the time of introduction of a money bill, then it is a floor test".
The court then asked, "when there was no voting, how can it be said it was against the state government. It could be bill neither passed nor defeated".
To this the AG said that despite there being no voting, the Speaker claimed to the Governor that bill has been passed.
"Since the bill was not passed, then it amounts to government having fallen," he added.
The bench asked if the government had fallen after the floor test, then would it not be the Governor's prerogative to invite someone to form an alternate government.
It also asked "what if Speaker does not allow voting?"
To this the AG said, then the decision of Speaker would be held as unconstitutional and if voting was not held then the government has fallen, especially when the majority of the house was ready to oppose a money bill.
He added that Speaker "cannot ignore how the members of the House wanted to vote".