President's rule in Arunachal comes under scrutiny of Supreme Court

In a setback to the BJP-led central government, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday described the Arunachal Pradesh crisis as "too serious a matter" and ordered the Centre to produce 'confidential' report sent by governor J P Rajkhowa.

The apex court's strong remarks came even as attorney general Mukul Rohatgi raised preliminary objection contending that the fresh plea does not challenge the notification on promulgation of President's rule.

The bench led by Justice J S Khehar asked Rohatgi not to raise "technical objections'' when he persisted with his argument that 'rules are rules' and should apply equally to all.

Supreme Court's initial reaction came as a shot in the arm for the Congress that called imposition of President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh "a sledgehammer blow to Indian federalism" tantamount to "worst misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution".

"Since the matter is already under the consideration of the Supreme Court, propriety demanded that the government should have awaited the outcome of the deliberations of the Supreme Court," Congress leader Manish Tewari said.

In dramatic turn of events, Centre on the basis of governor's report sent on January 24 imposed President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh on January 26 despite Congress petitioning the Supreme Court in between and seeking itsintervention on an urgent basis.

The fresh plea filed by advocates Fali S Nariman and Kapil Sibal is being seen as significant as the five-judge bench of the apex court is examining constitutional provisions on the scope of discretionary powers of the governor.

A team of senior lawyers posted by the Congress that includes Fali S Nariman, Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhawan and Vivek Tankha has opposed the plea of the governor seeking to maintain secrecy of his report and recommendation, insisting that a larger bench of more than five judges has already laid down the proposition on this aspect.

Maintaining a tough posture, the bench asked additional solicitor general Satpal Jain to only mention the date of report recommending President's rule to opposite parties during the course of the day when he sought to maintain secrecy of the report and the recommendation for the President's rule.

The bench, however, sought the report and recommendation on imposition of the President's rule in a sealed cover for its own perusal.

Observing that no interim order can be obtained unless the parties see the grounds for proclamation for President's rule, the bench said, "Unless we get the grounds for recommending the President's rule, we cannot proceed. If grounds are not same in the proclamation then it is totally a different ball game."

It posted the matter for February 1 for hearing but asked the governor and the Union home ministry to file their responses on an urgent basis by Friday on petitions filed by Congress, including the plea of Rajesh Tacho, chiefwhip of Congress Legislature party in the state assembly.

The bench has also allowed the petitioners to amend their plea by Friday.

Congress, which has 47 MLAs in the 60-member assembly, suffered a jolt when 21 of them rebelled in October last year and were backed up by 11 BJP MLAs in the bid to upstage the Nabam Tuki government. The 14 rebel Congress MLAs were later disqualified.

The governor, without seeking council of ministers' permission, called assembly session in a community hall on December 16 in which deputy speaker revoked disqualification of 14 rebel Congress MLAs and removed Rebia from the post of Speaker.