CASE ANALYSIS OF HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2016 SCC UTT 654)

BY
MAHIMA PATEL
INTERN
3RD YEAR,
AMITY LAW SCHOOL,
NOIDA
Mob- 9818821176
Gmail- mahimafbd29@gmail.com

26th APRIL 2020

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Few members of the ruling party of Uttrakhand wanted to vote for appropriation bill but the
then officer of the house declined them and passed the bill by voice majority. 9 MLAs of the
ruling party were disqualified by the presiding officer but the MLAs challenged it in the court
for the violation of natural justice. Also the Governor of Uttrakhand provided sufficient time
for the floor test. But a sting operation was in which it showed that Mr. Harish Chandra (the
presiding CM of Uttrakhand) was giving bribe to few of the members. After this operation,
the Central Government imposed presidential rule as stated in Article 356 in the state of
Uttrakhand. Article 356 is only applied to a part of the country when there is a breakdown of
the constitutional machinery in that area. Since the central government and the 9 Congress
MLAs itself claimed that Article 356 should be applied to the state of Uttrakhand, the
President of the county (Pranab Mukherjee) issued a proclamation regarding the imposition of
the presidential rule. After some days, the High Court of Uttrakhand directed the floor test but
the apex court refused this order. The Supreme Court ordered to dismiss the chief minister of
Uttrakhand of Congress to face a vote of trust in the assembly on May 10, but also mentioned
that the remaining 9 disqualified MLAs of Congress will vote if the Speaker of the Assembly
permits to do so. The Court declared the result on the next day. It was announced that the
Congress Government led by CM Harish Rawat will be back in burden in Uttrakhand and also
ordering the Central Government to invalidate the president’s rule as the Congress
Government had the victory in the floor test. The Attorney General announced that Rawat was
successful in proving the majority in the assembly by securing 33 votes out of 61.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Elections were held in the Uttrakhand legislature in which INC won 36 seats whereas BJP
won 28 seats and BSP won 2 seats. The Appropriation bill was taken into consideration on
18-03-2016. 26 MLAs belonging to BJP and 9 MLAs belonging to INC were prompted by
the BJP to remove the presiding government of Congress just after the passing of the
Appropriation Bill. These rebel MLAs then claimed to obtain a division of vote. The
president’s rule (article 356) was applied in the state of Uttrakhand. These protestor MLAs
moved to Raj Bhawan on that day and offered a joined memorandum on the letter head of
the leader of the opposition party mentioning the manner in which the government of
Uttrakhand carried out the vote for the Appropriation Bill and stating that the government

1
led by Congress Party should be terminated. Resolutions were moved against the deputy
speaker as well as the Speaker. In the night of 18-03-2016, all the 9 rebel MLAs of Congress
went along with Sri Kailash Vijayvargiya, National General Secretary, BJP and Sri Shyam
Jaju, General Secretary In-charge of the state of Uttrakhand to the Jolly Grant Airport at
Dehradun. It is claimed that all the 9 Congress MLAs were forced to stay at the Leela Hotel
in New Delhi. The BJP members did a march to request the president for dismissing the
Uttrakhand government. Later on 18-03-2016, all the 35 members went to Raj Bhawan to
submit a memorandum for questioning the position and status of the Appropriation Bill.
They claimed that they were overlooked by the Speaker while voting for the Appropriation
Bill. It was also submitted that the voting procedure has not been recorded. A message was
sent to the CM of the state of Uttrakhand to conduct the vote of confidence in the Assembly
as soon as possible. The vote of confidence should be recorded and videographed and sent to
the Governor of the state. A video of a sting operation was released in which the petitioner
was engaged in horse-trading. He was seen giving bribe to the MLAs in order to gain the
votes. The petitioner told the Governor that there is no abnormality in the house. All the 35
rebel MLAs from BJP and Congress party claimed that the Appropriation Bill had fallen in
the Assembly but the Speaker contemplates that it was successfully passed with a fair voting
by all MLAs. They also claimed that the Uttrakhand government has lost its majority with
which it recently won the general elections.

ARGUMENTS

PETITIONER:
The Chief Minister of Uttrakhand, Harish Rawat was the petitioner of the case. The
petitioner appealed that the BJP government at the Centre for achieving their motive to
dissolve the government of Uttrakhand, decided to take the way of emergency and applying
the President’s rule in the state. This can be considered as a desperate move by the BJP
government in order to topple the existing state government. When the BJP government
moved resolutions against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Uttrakhand Assembly, the
petitioner claimed it to be a mala fide move by BJP. He appealed that he received the
majority of votes in the general elections so there was no point to impose presidential rule
just before the floor test. They challenged the authenticity of the videotape, which was
claimed to be of the sting operation of he petitioner.

2
RESPONDENT:
The first respondent i.e. the Union of India claimed that there were materials available for
justifying the invocation of Article 356 also that there was concealment of the material facts.
According to the respondent, the petitioner was aware of the fact that all 27 rebel MLAs of
BJP had communicated with the Governor of the state and submitted a memorandum
demanding the Speaker to hold the voting for the Appropriation Bill in the Assembly.
According to them, the petitioner has mislead the court by representing the case in a manner
showing that the Speaker of the assembly considered and passed the bill with the approval of
all the 27 MLAs with the vote on the bill giving fair chance to everyone. They claimed that
they were ignored by the Speaker of the Assembly and hence resulting in the denial of the
right to vote to MLAs on the Appropriation Bill. There was a sting operation against the
petitioner, which clearly showed that he was horse-trading with the MLAs in order to seek
as many votes as he could.

ARTICLE 356

It is one of the most controversial issue in the country. When there is failure of any
constitutional machinery in a state then article 356 is applied to that particular state. Article
356 of the Constitution provides for the application of the president’s rule in a state on
occasion of any failure of mechanism. It can only be applied when the government of any
state is unable to function in accordance of the Indian Constitution. In other words, the
proclamation must be issued by the President only when it seems impossible for the state
government to carry out the affairs of the state and there is no other option left rather than
the President’s rule. This has further led to the misuse of the article by most of the
governments. Dr. Ambedkar clearly stated that this article is to be applied in rarest of the
rare cases when it is next to impossible to handle the situation raised.

The power given under Article 356 is not an absolute power. The emergency power is stated
under this article. When the situation of emergency arises, there is a need of remedies, which
should be taken urgently as this situation is not normal in any way. Article 356 can be
considered as a measure to preserve and shield the Constitution. The President only in the
exceptional cases should exercise this power. The Constitution is basically a political

3
document and provisions such as Article 356 have a power to unsettle and overthrow the
entire constitutional scheme. The President cannot exercise this power on his wish. He
should be objectively or subjectly satisfied with the conditions to exercise the powers under
the constitution.

Sarkaria commission, headed by R.S. Sarkaria was set up to find any loopholes in the article.
It took around 4 years for the commission to come up with a result. It stated to use the article
in the rarest instances. According to it, the article provides with the remedies when a
situation of breakdown of Constitutional machinery arises. Commission stated that this
article should be considered as a last option when all the alternative measures are failed to
prevent such situation. Before applying this article to any of the state, an appropriate
warning should be provided to that state. And still the conditions of the state are no better
and without applying the Presidential rule, it is impossible to cope up with the disastrous
consequences then only as a last option this article should be applied.

Here in this case, the former President of India Shri Pranab Mukherjee proclaimed state
emergency in the state of Uttrakhand after a report submitted by the Speaker of State
Assembly who disqualifies 9 Congress rebel MLAs. The apex court generated a
constitutional space for a time of three hours for conducting the floor test to confirm whether
the government of Uttrakhand, headed by Harish Rawat enjoyed the vote of confidence or
not. The President adjourned Harish Rawat and his government of the state and suspended
the State Assembly on advice of the Union Cabinet. Hence, for a period of three hours there
was no government in the state and the rule of the President was converted into a curfew
where the public could only buy the essential things.

APPROPRIATION BILL

It is stated under Article 203 of the Constitution. The State government cannot withdraw any
amount from the funds without the passing of this law by Assembly. After passage of any
bill in the State Legislative Assembly, the appropriation bill is laid before the MLAs so that
they could vote for the expenditure charged from the consolidated funds. This process
requires a long time as it includes presentation of bill, discussions, changes if required and
finally the voting. The appropriation bill includes the grants made by the Assembly and the
amount of money charged on the consolidated funds.

4
 FLOOR TEST

Floor test can be defined as a motion initiated by any government to check whether that
government enjoys the vote of confidence in the Assembly or not. To follow the procedure,
the chief minister will move a vote of confidence and prove that the majority of MLAs
support him and if the chief minister wails the floor test, he has to resign from the post. It
basically follows the concept of transparency in the constitution. The governor orders the
floor test in the Assembly so that it is clear as to whether the Chief Minister enjoys the
confidence of the Assembly or not. In this case since the Harish Rawat government was
questioned by its own MLAs, the government went through the floor test to confirm that it
enjoys the majority. The Central government imposed the President’s rule in the state just
before the floor test. The Congress government was successful in showing the majority in
the floor test and restored their government in the state of Uttrakhand.

RELATED CASE LAWS

In the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union Of India1, it was held that the report submitted by
the Governor of the state clearly mentions that the state governments have failed to protect
the citizens from the internal disturbances and these reports were verified to check the
authenticity. Mr. Bommai questioned the lawfulness of the proclamation before the
Karnataka high court through a writ petition on numerous grounds. The high
court terminated the petition and ruled that the proclamation issued under Article 356(1)
isn't wholly outside the pole of judicial analysis, the satisfaction of the President under
Article 356 (1) may be a condition of present issue of the proclamation right to be real and
genuine fulfillment supported relevant facts and circumstances. The scope of judicial review
is restricted to an examination whether the disclosed reasons allow any rational connection
to the proposed proclamation issued. Bommai appealed to the apex court against
the decision of the Karnataka High Court. A Bench of nine judges was constituted in
Bommai to believe the varied issued arising within the several cases, and 7 opinions were
provided. While few of the judges adopted a reflexive attitude towards review of the
presidential rule under Article 356 (1), other adopted somewhat activist position. The court

1
S.R. Bommai vs. Union Of India, 1994 AIR 1918

5
 held that proclamation made under Article 356 of the Constitution is justiciable and also
the courts could scrutinize the materials or the explanations disclosed for issuing the
proclamation to seek out out whether those materials or reasons were wholly unrelated to the
formation of the fulfillment and held no rationality in the slightest degree to the satisfaction
reached under Article356 of the constitution.

In the case, Jagdambika Pal vs. Union of India and ors2 The Allahabad High court
nullified the re-application of the President's Rule. To avoid any constitutional damage, it
directed that the judgment would be valid only prospectively. The Supreme Court permitting
a special leave petition against the decision stayed in force. While all of the three judges on
the Bench recorded their reasons separately, the court commonly held that the presidential
proclamation of 17 October 1996, permitted by Parliament was ' unconstitutional issued in
colourable exercise of power' and based on completely inappropriate and irrelevant grounds
which could not be permitted to stand. The governor was wrong in not recognizing that
President's Rule is the last option left or that he did not understand the legal position
properly. The criticism could hardly be more serious as it was for the first time over that an
act of the President implemented on the instruction of the council of ministers and also was
approved by both the houses of parliament was held to have been a colourable exercise of
power based on irrelevant grounds, declared unconstitutional and nullified.

The Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India 3 is a revolutionary case, which deals with
disputes in the elections. The judgment of majority held that the proclamation
unconstitutional. Just because the Governor is awarded complete immunity under Article
361 of the Constitution, it does not mean that the Governor's actions are mala fide and
cannot be examined by the court. If the court is not of the view that any action of Governor
has been performed incorrectly and directly questions the Constitution of India, then the
court has right to examine such acts and check its Constitutionality and validity.
The Governor couldn’t take the appeal stating that no Government could be formed unless
and until he exhausted all the possible choices available to him involving the one of asking
the house itself to elect the leader. In Bihar, the Governor hurried to advise imposition of
President's Rule under Article 356, which was an expedient of last option to be used when
everything else failed. Application of President's Rule as soon as election were finished

2
Jagdambika Pal vs. Union of India, JT 1998 (4) SC 319
3
Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union Of India, 2006

6
 without even allowing the recently elected house to meet was a contempt of the electoral
exercise and the conclusion of people. The representatives whom the people elected could
not be so quickly sent home on the random advice of a Governor.

In the case Nabam Rebia vs. deputy speaker 4, Supreme Court restored the Government led
by Nabam Tuki in Arunachal Pradesh and announced as illegitimate decisions of Governor
that had first led to application of President's Rule in the State and then formation of a new
Government led by ruling party's separate group. Everyone welcomed the order. The timely
involvement of judiciary made the application of Article356 i.e. President's Rule, depending
on a Constitutional failure which is subject to judicial review. The historic judgment will
check the Centre's tendency to misuse Governor's powers and President' Rule to remove
opponent State Governments. While restoring the previous Government, the apex court held
that the Assembly wasn’t suspended immediately, but only kept under adjourned animation
until both the houses of parliament permitted President's Rule. It also demanded a floor test
to confirm Government's majority. Thus, the Supreme Court restored the purity of floor test.
Supreme Court ordered Governor of Arunachal Pradesh to answer why he recommended
President's Rule in the state. But later, the Supreme Court retracted the order saying that it
made a fault by not recognizing that the Governor have complete power and are not
responsible to courts for any act done under their official capacity.

JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF

The order by the High Court of Uttrakhand was clearly in favour to the petitioner. Chief
Justice K.M.Joseph pronounced the judgment on April 21, 2016 providing reliefs to the
petitioner who was the Chief Minister of Uttrakhand. An order was issued by the court for
quashing the proclamation, which was issued under Article 356. The respondent
recommended the President’s rule in Uttrakhand, which was also canceled by the court. The
court ordered the respondent to provide all the records related to the recommendation of the
application of the President’s rule in Uttrakhand. The court ordered Harish Rawat to restore
his government with all of this Council of Ministers and to restart the office as the Chief
Minister of Uttrakhand and revive the 3rd Uttrakhand Legislative Assembly. The court also

4
Nabam Rebia and etc. vs. deputy speaker and ors, 2016 SC 694

7
issued an order declaring all the orders or actions passed during the period of President’s
rule as void-ab-initio i.e. illegal and hence quashed.

OVERVIEW OF JUDGMENT

The Uttrakhand High Court pronounced the judgment for the case on 21 st April 2016 clearly
providing reliefs to the petitioner. The court nullified the application of the President’s rule
under Article 356 in the state of Uttrakhand and restored the Harish Rawat’s government
and had asked the government to prove its majority in the State Legislative Assembly on 29
April 2016. The two-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice KM Joseph and VK Bist
mentioned that the imposition of Article 356 in the state was conflicting the laws laid down
by the Apex Court. It was observed by the bench that the President’s rule should only be
imposed on the satisfaction of the President and not on his wish, as this would be considered
as a constitutional sin. Continuing the disqualification of the 9 rebel Congress MLAs, the
bench mentioned that they would have to pay the price of being constitutionally immoral.
The court ordered to restore the Congress government in the state of Uttrakhand and also
prove the majority of his government in the State Assembly. Harish Rawat was ordered to
conduct a floor test on April 29 also when the government will restore. The court said that
“the material has been found wanting and undoubtedly supports the judicial review
interfering with the proclamation.” The bench also stated that any solitary instance would
not contribute for imposing President’s Rule in the state and therefore the court quashed the
proclamation. Just a day before the floor test to occur in the Assembly, the central
government imposed the President’s rule stating that there is severe breakdown of
constitutional machinery in the state. The central government justified the President’s rule
by stating that Harish Rawat’s government was failed to pass the Appropriation bill which
was introduced at the Assembly but he claimed it to have passed. Also the respondent had a
sting operation of Harish Rawat which clearly witnessed him to have involved in Horse-
trading. He was clearly seen giving bribe to MLAs to vote for him. The court stated that the
Central government was wrong as they dismissed the state government just a day before the
floor test and imposed the President’s Rule was held unconstitutional. When the Supreme
Court removed the President’s Rule for two hours, there was no power governing the state of
Uttrakhand. The bench referred the Bommai Case, 1994 several times in the judgment as

8
they thought that this case would end this objectionable practice. There were five points,
which were emphasized by the 2 judges bench of the High Court:
1. The High Court discovered that the power to impose the President’s rule under
Article 356 in a state was held as contrary to law. The court mentioned that the way it was
imposed in the state was conflicting the procedure as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Hence, the President’s rule was quashed by the High Court.
2. The verdict also stated that since the President’s rule under Article 356 is quashed
in the state of Uttrakhand, the Harish Rawat government will revive and restore its office
and the MLAs will continue with the 3rd Legislative Assembly of Uttrakhand. This was
announced in open court and it was made clear that that the Congress government will
continue to be in power.
3. The court had very harsh opinion on the fact that the President took view of the
situation from the Governor of Uttrakhand. There was no requirement for the imposition of
the President’s rule since the floor test was about to occur in the State Assembly to check the
majority of the government as claimed by the respondent.
4. The High Court also commented on the issue of sting operation of Harish Rawat
who was found to be horse-trading. The court said that there is no doubt that it is a case of
corruption but there is no kind of wrongdoing found. It is a true issue which continues to
curse the society and hence an action should be taken if it has actually happened.
5. The court accepted the argument presented by the lawyer of petitioner and stated
the President’s rule as “double whammy” on powers of Governor and the Speaker. It was
also mentioned by the bench that this is an extra-ordinary case in the history.

Hence the conclusion of the judgment it can be stated that the proclamation issued under
Article 356 will be quashed. The bench also referred the case of Bommai and directed that
status on the date of the proclamation will be restored. This basically means that the
government of the Congress will revive again. But since the government is restoring, the
petitioner will have to seek the vote of confidence in the Assembly on 29th April 2016.

SUGGESTION

9
The imposition of Article 356 is so common and is used by the government more often in
the recent times. The President’s rule is a sensitive issue and should be applied rarely. It
should be imposed only when such situation arises, when there is a failure of constitutional
machinery in a state. According to my opinion, political parties sometimes use Article 356
as a weapon. President’s rule should be applied with proper care and diligence and only
when the state is unable to work with proper constitutional machinery. As seen in this case,
Article 356 was imposed on the state of Uttrakhand just with the recommendation by the 35
rebel MLAs of the state of Uttrakhand. It is often used by the opposition parties to keep the
ruling party at the bay.

REFERENCES

 Harish Chandra Singh Rawat v. Union of India and Another 2016 SCC Utt 654.
 S.R. Bommai vs. Union Of India, 1994 AIR 1918
 Jagdambika Pal vs. Union of India, JT 1998 (4) SC 319
 Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union Of India, 2006
 Nabam Rebia and etc. vs. deputy speaker and ors, 2016 SC 694
 ‘What Is a Floor Test? | What Is News, The Indian Express’
<https://indianexpress.com/article/what-is/what-is-a-floor-test/> accessed 22 April 2020
 Union of India v. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat MANU/SC/0611/2016
 Shreeja Sen, ‘Five key observations of Uttrakhand High Court’, (Livemint, 27 April 2017)
<https://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZDTHfa2At7y2pEQFSfRb9N/Five-quotes-from-the-
Uttarakhand-high-court-verdict.html> accessed 24 April 2020
 Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, ‘An Analysis of Pre and Post S.R. Bommai Scenario with
Reference to President's Rule in States’, (IJHSSI, June 2017)
http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v6(6)/Version-4/B0606040514.pdf accessed 24 April 2020
 President’s rule: misuse of article 356
< https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/96292/12/12_chapter%206.pdf>
accessed 25 April 2020
 Administrator, (Abacaus, April 2016) https://abcaus.in/judgments/uttarakhand-high-court-
quashing-presidential-rule-article-356-download.html accessed 21 April 2020

10
 BRIEF ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mahima Patel is pursuing Bcom.llb (H) from Amity Law School, Noida. She is currently
Junior Research and Internship Coordinator at ProBono India. She has participated in a
number of Moot Court Competitions and legal quizzes. She has written various research
papers and got published a few of them. She is interested in Corporate Law as well as
Constitution Law. She has interned in the Supreme Court as well as Delhi High Court. Few
areas of her interest are reading, playing chess and travelling. By being part of Team
ProBono, she is contributing to society through legal aid.

11