SC slaps notice on Centre

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday slapped a notice on the Centre and Arunachal Pradesh Governor J P Rajkhowa to furnish material to back their claim that the Constitutional machinery in the State had failed and it warranted the proclamation of emergency by the President.

It also was pertinent to know whether there was only one recommendation from the Governor or many recommendations to the effect. The next hearing has been fixed for 2 pm on February 1. It may be recalled that President Pranab Mukherjee stamped his assent on the Cabinet decision after the R-Day parade though initially it was reported that he sought a clarification from the Union Home Ministry following the Cabinet recommendation.

The five-judge Constitution bench headed by J S Khehar issued the notice to the Centre and the Governor on a petition filed by the Congress. The Congress claimed in its petition that the proclamation of Centre rule by President Pranab Mukherjee under Article 356 of the Constitution was result of a conspiracy by the Centre and the Governor to pull down the ruling Congress from the power in Arunachal Pradesh.

The bench directed the Centre and the Governor to file their respective counter-affidavits by Friday. The Congress petition demanded that they "furnish" records culminating in the Union Cabinet's recommendation for a proclamation of President's Rule.

Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi sought recourse to technicalities in opposing the petition to content that he need not even respond to it as the Central rule was not even proclaimed when the petition was filed in the SC on January 25. "How could they (Congress) file it? The President's proclamation came only on January 26. It ought to be dismissed outright." he contended.

When Rohatgi continued to insist on dismissing the petition outright and that the super-injunction could not be granted as technically it was not needed, Justice Khehar asked him not to delve on a technicality much. Fali Nariman representing the petitioners termed Rohatgi had transformed into a 'technical individual".

At this juncture, Justice Dipak Misra asked the AG to accept the notice and reply as the notice had already been issued. Fali Nariman defending the Congress contention that the Governor double-timed the SC by assuring it that there would be no precipitative action on his part while recommending the proclamation of Central rule, said the exact date of such a recommendation must be produced before the court to throw light on the suspicion.

Questioning Governor's counsel Satya Pal Jain's contention that there were certain developments, the bench asked the counsel why it was not told about the same as assured earlier. Though the Centre and the Governor maintained that there had been a series of reports from the latter to the former on the situation in the State, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice N Ramana, referring to the Gazette notification, said it referred to only one notification and not many as claimed by the two.

It may be recalled that the Governor has been a party in a batch of petitions being heard by the very same Constitution bench from January 13 to resolve the political turmoil in the state which has seen the impeachment of the Assembly Speaker, legislative sessions held in community halls and a Raj Bhavan under attack for playing partisan.

When the Governor's counsel then claimed that there could have been a "series of inputs culminating in a report," the bench ordered the Governor to produce the copy of his report at their official residences and further to communicate the date of the recommendation (alone) to the Congress lawyers, so that they could amend their petitions suitably.