uttarakhand political imbroglio

Here is a simplified account of what has happened in Uttarakhand and the various legal and constitutional provisions that have come into force. However various grey areas have been exposed in the legal system in this case and therefore it is also unprecedented in certain aspect and calls for novelty in approach.

1. The whole issue of defection comes into play only when the culprit has committed the crime. Ie say in a vote of no confidence, u defect and the gvt loses majority. Alright, so next day u lose party ticket as well.
However the case with uttarakhand has been that the defectors were caught b4 they could go astray. When the finance bill was being passed the speaker of the house did voice voting, by aye and nay.

such voice voting only happens when there is a discernible majority, however when cases are in deadlock kind of situation and votes need to be counted with mathematical precision voting takes place through secret ballet. In this case 9 had defected but since it was a voice vote they were deliberately or erroneously  or their dissent not registered or whatever and the finance bill was passed.

Now the centre chose to impose president's rule citing that the speaker had malafide intentions in not conducting a floor test. However in all this ordeal what became clear was that 9 members of the gvt had defected.

So now when the gvt is going to go for a floor test, these guys wont be able to influence the gvt. Their seats will simply go empty. The BJP wants these members to stay as part of the house and take part in voting, however Both the HC and SC have held that they cant question the decision of speaker and therefore these rebels stand disqualified.

should the anti defection law be amended to take such situations into account. ??

 Had the BJP gvt at centre gone for floor test b4 the courts order then would the scenario have changed in Uttarkhand. ? (Probably no because speaker already defected them)



Another contentious issue that has been raised is that why is the judiciary getting so excessively involved in this executive matter. The president's rule of course can be questioned in a court of law but the judiciary has gone on to dictate the end of suspeneded animation clause of president rule and also to conduct the floor test of the house. This is all executive realm so please judiciary keep ur hands off the executive. 

In SR Bommai case -- the court held that it cannot go into the merit of advice given to the president by the cabinet but can look into whether proper material and procedure were consulted and followed to come to the decision.

In 2006 presidents rule on Bihar Buta Singh case -- the apex court held that the governor's report on imposition of 356 cant be taken at face value and needs to be ascertained