A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and S.K. Singh earlier in the day heard Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who mentioned the matter.
The Supreme Court today stayed till April 27 the judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court quashing the imposition of President's rule, giving a new turn to the continuing political drama in the state by restoring the Central rule there.
Before passing a brief order, a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh recorded an undertaking given by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that the "Union of India shall not revoke the Presidential proclamation till the next date of hearing".
The apex court clarified that it was keeping in abeyance the judgement of the High Court till the next date of hearing on April 27 as a measure of balance for both the parties as the copy of the verdict was not made available to the parties.
The High Court judgement had also directed Rawat to prove his majority in the Assembly on April 29.
While listing the matter for hearing on April 27, the bench said that the High Court shall provide the judgement passed yesterday to the parties by April 26 and on the same date the copy of the verdict shall also be placed before the apex court.
The Supreme Court's stay has the effect of undoing the revival of the Congress government led by Harish Rawat by the High Court judgement yesterday.
During the hearing, the bench also observed that as a matter of propriety the High Court should have signed the verdict so that it would be appropriate for it to go into the appeal.
17:30 IST Friday, 22 April 2016
Harish Rawat speaks about SC judgement
17:23 IST Friday, 22 April 2016
A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and S.K. Singh earlier in the day heard Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who mentioned the matter and sought an urgent hearing and stay of the High Court?s verdict. The High Court on Thursday set aside the Centre's rule imposed last month, saying Article 356 was imposed in the state contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court.
The High Court accused the Centre of acting in blatant falsehood and behaving like a private party. The High Court asked Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat to prove his government's majority on the floor of the assembly on the April 29.
State BJP chief spokesperson Munna Singh Chauhan said he did not see the high court judgement as a jolt to the party. He described the verdict as "lopsided" which, he said, overlooked, serious aspects of the case, including all that happened inside the Uttarakhand Assembly on March 18.
"The entire case revolves around illegal transaction of business in the state Assembly on March 18 by the Speaker who denied a division of votes on the Appropriation Bill adopting a partisan approach. This aspect seems to have been lost sight of completely in the judgement," Chauhan
Naidu speak
Imposition of President's rule in Uttarakhand is a temporary measure and the Assembly can be revived on the basis of the Governor's report, Union minister M Venkaiah Naidu today said, a day after the high court quashed imposition of central rule in the state.
He said the central government is very clear that there was a constitutional breakdown in Uttarakhand because the Appropriation Bill was not passed in the Assembly.
"We feel there was no other way than (use of Article) 356 (of the Constitution). The Assembly was not dissolved. Because there was a constitutional breakdown, temporarily President's rule was imposed and anytime the Assembly can be revived.
"That is up to the Governor's report and also the situation there. As far as we are concerned, we always respect the rule of law. We respect the Constitution," Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Naidu said.
His comments came a day after the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the proclamation of President's rule in the state and revived the Congress government headed by Harish Rawat, who has been asked to prove his majority in the Assembly on April 29.
Naidu said that on the one hand the then government said the Appropriation Bill was passed through a voice vote and on the other, the Speaker disqualified some MLAs saying they opposed the government.
"How can these two things go together? There is a confusion and contradiction which has to be cleared," he said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Uttarkhand HC")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}