IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____OF 2016
(Arising from the Final Judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by
the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 795/2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA

PETITIONER
Versus,

SH. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT & ANR.

RESPONDENTS
I.A. No. ____/2016

Application for permission to file Special

Leave to Appeal without certified as well
as plain copy of the impugned judgment
dated 21.04.2016

I.A. No. ____/2016

An Application for permission to file the

Lengthy Synopsis and List of Dates.

I.A. No. ____/2016

An Application for exemption from filing

certified copy of the impugned judgement
dated 21.04.2016

PAPER BOOK
(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: MRS. ANIL KATIYAR

Filed On: 22.04.2016

S.NO.
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

INDEX
PARTICULARS
Office Report On Limitation
Listing Performa
Synopsis and List of dates
Impugned Judgment dated 21.04.2016
passed by the Honble Uttarakhand High
Court at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.
795/2016 (Copy of the impugned judgment
has not become available. The letter
written by the Assistant Solicitor General,
Uttarakhand informing the outcome of the
writ petition is being placed with prayer for
leave to file the copy of the impugned
judgment immediately on its becoming
available.)
Special Leave Petition with Affidavit
APPENDIX
i. Article 356 of the Constitution of India
ii. Article 212 of the Constitution of India

7.

ANNEXURE- P1
Copy of notification of Proclamation dated
27.03.2016 issued by the Honble President
of India.
8. ANNEXURE- P2
Copy of the order dt. 29.03.2016 passed by
the ld. Single judge of the Honble
Uttarakhand High Court in WP No.
795(M/S)/2016.
9. ANNEXURE- P3
Copy of the order dt. 30.03.2016 passed by
the ld. Division Bench of the Honble
Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal
No. 64/2016.
10. I.A. ____ / 2016
Application for permission to file Special
Leave to Appeal without certified as well as
plain copy of the impugned judgment dated
21.04.2016
11. I.A. ____ / 2016
An Application for permission to file the
Lengthy Synopsis and List of Dates.
12. I.A. ____ / 2016
An Application for exemption from filing
certified copy of the impugned judgement
dated 21.04.2016

PAGES
-AA1 - A2
B-

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The present Special Leave Petition is being filed against
the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by the ld.
Division Bench of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital
in Writ Petition No. 795 (M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish
Chandra Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr.
Vide

its

impugned

judgment

dated

21.04.2016

[pronounced in open court], the Honble High Court has been

pleased to quash the Proclamation dated 27.03.2016 issued
under Article 356 of the Constitution imposing Presidents Rule
in the State of Uttarakhand.
It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of
the Honble High Court has been pronounced in open Court and
a copy thereof has not become available. The petitioner has
already applied for a certified copy of the impugned judgment.
There is an imminent urgency to challenge the legality and
validity of the impugned judgment by filing the present SLP. It is
due to the urgency in the present matter and the paucity of
time that the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the
Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned judgment,
which has not become available. The present Special Leave
Petition has been filed on the basis of the telephonic
conversation and communication received from the counsel for
the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for India at
the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. A true copy of

the letter dated 21.04.2016 sent by the Asst. Solicitor General

for India is annexed with this Special Leave Petition. The
petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court for permission to
file the present Special Leave Petition without the impugned
judgment. The petitioner undertakes to place on record the
copy of the impugned judgment immediately on its becoming
available.
It is further submitted that the present SLP is being filed
only on the

basis of the

telephonic

conversation and

communication dt. 21.04.2016 of the Assistant Solicitor General

of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further seeks leave of
this Honble Court to alter / modify / add / amend the present
SLP with additional and further grounds upon perusing of the
impugned judgment passed by the Honble High Court.
On that basis, it is submitted that after quashing the
Proclamation dt. 27.03.2016, the Honble High Court has been
pleased to, inter alia, direct as under:i. Status quo as on 27.03.2016, i.e. the date when the
impugned Presidential proclamation was issued shall be
maintained.
ii. Floor test shall be held in the Uttarakhand Vidhan
Sabha on 29.04.2016.
It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned
judgment of the Honble High Court is contrary to the settled
principles of law laid down by this Honble Court and the Honble
High Courts. The Honble High Court has not remained within

the

permissible

limits

of

judicial

review

of

Presidential

proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of

India as laid down in various judicial pronouncements of this
Honble Court and the Honble High Courts. The impugned
judgment, being contrary to the settled principles of law,
deserves to be set aside by this Honble Court.
LIST OF DATES
30.01.2012: The 3rd General Elections were held for the 70member Legislative Assembly of the State of
Uttrakhand.
6.03.2012:

The results of the 3rd General Election for the

Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand
were announced on 6.03.2012. The Indian
National Congress [INC] emerged as the single
largest party with 32 seats in the 70 member
Legislative

Assembly.

The

INC

formed

its

government with the help and support of:i) one (1) MLA from Uttrakhand Kranti Dal,
ii) three (3) independent MLAs, and
iii) three (3) MLAs from Bahujan Samaj Party
(BSP).
In the said elections, the main opposition party
namely the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) got 31
seats.
Thereafter, due to vacancies that arose, bye -

elections were held in certain constituencies. As

on 18.03.2016, the party-wise breakup of seats in
the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly was as
follows:i) 36 members of Indian National Congress (INC)
ii) 28 members of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
iii) 2 members of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP)
iv) 1 member of Uttarakhand Kranti Dal [P] (UKD
[P])
v) 3 independents.
09.03.2016: The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly had been
summoned by the Honble Governor for its
Budget Session commencing from 09.03.16. The
address by the Honble Governor was delivered
at the beginning of the Session on 09.03.16.
18.03.2016

Earlier in the day on 18.03.16, 27 MLAs of the

(10.30 a.m. BJP, led by Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the

and
a.m.)

11.10 Opposition, had submitted a representation to the

Secretariat of the Honble Governor, inter alia,
pointing out therein that on the said day the
Appropriation Bill 2016-17 was to be presented
before the House. Further, with reference to Rule
296 of the Rules of Procedure of the Uttarakhand
Assembly, a demand had been made that
division of vote should take place on the
Appropriation Bill 2016-17. The Honble Governor

had been requested to require the Honble

Speaker and the House to hold a division of vote
on the Appropriation Bill 2016-17, in terms of
Rule 296(1) of the Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business of Uttarakhand Legislative
Assembly of 2005.
This representation had been received in
the office of the Honble Governor at about 10.30
a.m. on 18.03.16. The Honble Governor was not
in

Dehradun.

Sh.

Ajay

Bhatt,

Leader

of

Opposition had contacted the Honble Governor

on phone and informed him of the representation
of these 27 MLAs. The Honble Governor had
instructed

his

Secretariat

to

receive

the

representation of these 27 MLAs and directing

further that the said representation of 27 MLAs
asking for division of vote on the Appropriation
Bill 2016-17, received in his Secretariat should be
forwarded to the Honble Speaker. It was also
directed that the audio and video recording of the
proceedings of the House should also be
obtained from the Honble Speaker.
In accordance with the directions of the
Honble Governor, the said representation of 27
MLAs of BJP requiring the division of vote on the
Appropriation Bill 2016-17 was forwarded by fax

to the Honble Speaker alongwith a letter dated

18.03.16 addressed by the OSD and Secretary to
the Honble Governor (total 4 pages), at about
11.10 a.m. on 18.03.16.
18.03.2016
(at

The Honble Governor had arrived at Dehradun at

around about 1.00 p.m. on 18.03.16 and had been

1.00 p.m.)

apprised of the carrying out of his directions in

relation to the representation of 27 MLAs of BJP
requiring the division of vote on the Appropriation
Bill 2016-17, which had been forwarded by fax at
about 11.10 a.m.

18.03.2016
(at

At about 2.25 p.m. on 18.03.16, the Honble

about Governor had received another representation dt.

2.25 p.m.)

18.03.16 from the Leader of Opposition, inter alia,

contending therein that one BJP MLA, Sh.
Ganesh Joshi, had been arrested at about 8.45
a.m. from a hotel during a meeting of the BJP
Legislative Committee. Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of
the Opposition, had submitted a memorandum dt.
18.03.16, to the Honble Governor reporting this
event and raising a grievance for such an illegal
and unconstitutional act in relation to Sh. Joshi
and requesting for issuance of appropriate
instructions

for

his

participating

in

the

proceedings of the Assembly on 18.03.16.

This memorandum dt. 18.03.16 received

at about 2.25 p.m. by the Honble Governor was

directed to be forwarded to the Honble Speaker.
In accordance with the direction of the Honble
Governor, this memorandum of Sh. Ajay Bhatt,
Leader of Opposition regarding the arrest of BJP
MLA Sh. Ganesh Joshi alongwith a covering
letter dated 18.03.16 signed by the OSD and
Secretary

to

the

Honble

Governor,

was

forwarded to the Honble Speaker by fax (2

pages), at 2.53 p.m. on 18.03.16.
18.03.2016
(at

Immediately

upon

introduction

of

the

about Appropriation Bill 2016-17 in the Uttarakhand

7.30 p.m.)

Legislative Assembly at about 7.30 p.m. in the

evening on 18.03.2016, a demand for division of
vote was made by 35 MLAs (26 MLAs of BJP and
9 MLAs of Congress) on the floor of the House.
At that point of time, only 67 MLAs and the
Honble Speaker were present in the House. The
petitioner in the writ petition before the High Court
/ Respondent No. 1 herein in the present SLP was also present. The demand for division of vote
by 35 MLAs on the floor of the House had
constituted a demand by the majority.
It appears that despite receiving the copy
of the representation of 27 MLAs demanding for
the division of vote in terms of Rule 296(1) with

reference to the Appropriation Bill 2016-17 having

been forwarded as per the directions of the
Honble Governor and further despite the same
demand having been made by 35 MLAs on the
floor of the House (out of total 68 MLAs present in
the House), division of vote was not taken /
carried out by the Honble Speaker.
On the contrary, it had been claimed that
the Appropriation Bill 2016-17 had been passed
by a voice vote at about 7.30 p.m. At about 7.43
p.m. on 18.03.16, the proceedings of the House
had been adjourned to 28.03.16 by the Honble
Speaker.
18.03.2016
(at

The Secretariat of the Honble Governor, at about

about 11.30 p.m. on 18.03.16, had received another

11.30 p.m.)

memorandum signed by the 35 MLAs - including

Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition alongwith 34
other MLAs, inter alia, contending that they had
met the Honble Governor earlier in the day on
18.03.16 for division of vote in the House on the
Appropriation Bill 2016-17, however, despite
specific demand also having been made on the
floor of the House by 35 MLAs for division of vote
on the Appropriation Bill 2016-17, the same had
not been taken / carried out. It was contended
that the Government had lost the confidence of

the House and is conducting itself in an

unconstitutional manner. It was also contended
that there were 68 MLAs present in the House
including the Honble Speaker. Out of them, 35
MLAs had opposed the Appropriation Bill 2016-17
and therefore, the said Appropriation Bill had not
been passed and the Government is in minority.
Along

with

the

above-mentioned

memorandum signed by 35 MLAs including Sh.

Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition and 34 other
MLAs [handed over at about 11.30 p.m. on
18.03.16],

copies

of

two

more

resolutions

[addressed to the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha]

one for removal of the Honble Speaker and the
other one for the removal of Honble Deputy
Speaker of the House, had been furnished to the
Honble Governor. These resolutions had been
signed by 35 MLAs.
19.03.2016

A communication / special report dt. 19.03.16

was sent by the Honble Governor to the Honble
President of India giving his preliminary view on
account of events regarding the proceedings of
Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly on 18.03.16
including that the Honble Speaker had claimed
the passing of the Appropriation Bill by voice
vote, finality of such a decision etc.

In this

communication / special report of the Honble

Governor dt. 19.03.16, the events which had
taken place on 18.03.16, inter alia, the direction
of

the

Honble

Governor

to

forward

the

representation of 27 MLAs for division of vote on

the Appropriation Bill 2016-17 to the Honble
Speaker had been reiterated. The memorandum
with regard to Sh. Ganesh Joshi was also
reiterated. The fact that at about 7.30 p.m. on
18.03.16, a demand for division of vote on the
Appropriation Bill had been made on the floor of
the House, had also been reiterated. Sh. Ajay
Bhatt, Leader of Opposition calling up the Honble
Governor at about 8.00 p.m. and informing him
that according to him the Government has fallen,
was also incorporated. The fact that 35 MLAs
including Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of Opposition
alongwith 34 MLAs had called upon the Governor
at Raj Bhavan and handed over a letter signed by
35 MLAs stating that the Appropriation Bill had
not been passed in the House etc., was also
incorporated.
19.03.2016

By

another

communication

dt.

19.03.16,

addressed by the Honble Governor to the then

Honble Chief Minister, the necessity to seek a
vote of confidence from the State Legislature at

the earliest but not later than 28.03.16 having

already been conveyed to him, was incorporated.
20.03.2016

Another communication was addressed by the

Honble Governor to the then Honble Chief
Minister on 20.03.16 reiterating his advice that a
vote of confidence be taken at the earliest and
that this be done without any delay.

20.03.2016

The Honble Governor, on 20.03.16, wrote to the

Honble President conveying that on 19th March
the then Honble Chief Minister had been asked
to seek a vote of confidence at the earliest but not
later than 28th March; that the then Chief Minister
had subsequently called upon the Governor in the
evening and given his version of events when he
was once again advised to seek the vote of
confidence at the earliest and without any delay;
that another letter has been sent to the then Chief
Minister on the morning of 20th March 2016
reiterating the same.

21.03.2016

The Honble Governor wrote to the Honble

President on 21.03.16 conveying that the then
Chief Minister along with Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Smt. Indira Hridyesh had met the Honble
Governor on the evening of 20th March 2016. The
then Honble Chief Minister was told that there
were reports of law and order problem at the

residences of some of the rebel Congress MLAs.

The then Honble Chief Minister was very firmly
advised and in no uncertain terms that the vote of
confidence be taken within the next 2-3 days as
had been repeatedly emphasized by the Honble
Governor that it had to be done at the earliest.
The then Honble Chief Minister expressed his
inability in the matter. The then Honble Chief
Minister expressed his inability to intervene at this
stage when the Speaker had already initiated the
process. The then Honble Chief Minister also
claimed that there was no irregularity in the
House, at which point he was shown the
proceedings of the Assembly where a demand for
vote by division was made but was not allowed.
The then Honble Chief Minister had contended
that the decision of the Honble Speaker was final
in the matter. Smt. Indira Hridyesh was called in
by the Honble Governor. She raised the issue of
No Confidence Resolution against the Honble
Speaker and Honble Deputy Speaker and had
said that a 14 days period was essential. Three
MLAs of Congress i.e. Sh. Vijay Bahuguna, Sh.
Harak Singh Rawat and Smt. Amrita Rawat had
submitted a letter to the Honble Governor on 20th
March 2016 stating that there was breakdown of

constitutional machinery as majority of MLAs

have voted against the Money Bill and the
defeated Money Bill was claimed to have been
passed. In the said letter, an apprehension is
also expressed that the erstwhile State Govt.
would use the next one week to convert a
minority into majority either by horse trading or by
disqualification of MLAs. Certain other events had
also been reiterated.
The Honble Governor in his letter dated
21.03.16 had also proceeded to state that on the
night of 20th March 2016, the then Honble Chief
Minister had replied to the Honble Governors
letter advising him to seek a vote of confidence,
stating that this has been conveyed to the
Honble Speaker who has informed that the next
session of the Assembly will commence on 28th
March 2016 at 11.00 a.m. The legal issues
connected with Article 181 of the constitution in
the matter of No Confidence Motion against the
Speaker

and

Deputy

Speaker

are

being

examined.
23.03.2016

On 23.03.16, a message under Article 175(2) was

sent by the Honble Governor to the Vidhan
Sabha of Uttarakhand. In the said message it was
stated that a group of 35 MLAs had visited the

Raj Bhawan on 18.03.16 and had submitted a

Memorandum, inter alia, questioning the status of
Appropriation Bill 2016. It was urged that despite
35 Members requesting for a voting by division,
they were ignored by the Speaker. It was
contended that this resulted into denying them
their right to vote on the Appropriation Bill.
The then Honble Chief Minister vide his
communication dt. 20.03.16, had intimated that
the vote of confidence will be sought on 28.03.16,
when the Assembly meets at 11.00 a.m. It had
been directed by the Honble Governor that the
proceedings of the Assembly on 28.03.16 shall
be conducted peacefully, upholding the spirit of
democracy. The results of the voting by division
shall be declared soon thereafter. The entire
proceedings of the Assembly shall be recorded
and videographed and authenticated copy of the
video and other records shall be sent to the
Governor with the transcript of the proceedings
the same day.
25.03.2016

The Honble Governor, on 25.03.16, wrote to the

Honble President conveying that the then
Honble Chief Minister will be seeking a vote of
confidence from the House on 28.03.16, when it
meets after the vacation. A message under

Article 175(2) has already been sent to the

Speaker. Honble Governor had called the
Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha and given him
detailed directions vide his communication dt.
23.03.16. On a petition of the Chief Whip and
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Smt. Indira
Hridyesh, the Speaker had issued show cause
notice to 9 Congress MLAs under the Anti
Defection Rules of the Uttarakhand Legislative
Assembly.

These

notices

were

issued

on

19.03.16 and were returnable on 26.03.16.

26.03.2016

The Honble Governor, on 26.03.16, wrote to the

Honble President, inter alia, conveying that at
11.00 a.m. on 26.03.16, a closed cover was
received at Raj Bhavan from the office of Sh.
Bahuguna.
representation

The

closed

addressed

cover
to

the

had

Honble

Governor by Sh. Harak Singh Rawat. The letter

also had a pen drive attached with it. The pen
drive contained, inter alia, 3 audio conversations
and one video recording. The transcript of the
conversation in the video was also attached with
the representation.
In this video, the then Honble Chief
Minister was clearly visible but the other person in
conversation with him (claimed to be one Sh.

Umesh

Sharma)

was

not

clearly

visible/identifiable. The conversation is indicative

of

monetary

and

other

allurements

being

discussed. The representation alongwith the pen

drive and the transcript was forwarded by the
Honble Governor to the Honble President of
India. The contents of the pen drive were being
analyzed for their veracity.
26.03.2016

The

Honble

Governor

addressed

another

communication / report to the Honble President

on 26.03.16. Inter alia, the following had been set
out therein:i.

The

Budget

Session

had

started

on

09.03.16 with the address of the Governor

and a total of 8 sittings had already been
held upto 18.03.16.
ii.

It has been reiterated that on 18.03.16, the

Appropriation Bill for F.Y. 2016-17 was to
be passed. When the Appropriation Bill was
taken up, a demand for division had been
made.

iii.

Similarly, it has also been reiterated that

earlier in the day on 18.03.16, 27 MLAs of
the BJP had addressed a representation to
the Honble Governor requesting for a vote
on division of the Appropriation Bill. This

representation

was

forwarded

to

the

Speaker of the Assembly. Directions for

audio video recording of the proceedings to
the Governor were also conveyed.
iv.

The fact of memorandum with regard to

arrest of Sh. Ganesh Joshi and request for
his participation in the proceedings of the
House on 18.03.16 by the Leader of the
Opposition was also reiterated.

v.

At about 7.30 p.m., as soon as Sh. Ajay

Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition rose
demanding a division, the Speaker made an
announcement

in

the

prevailing

pandemonium that the Appropriation Bill

has been passed and thereafter left the
Assembly Chamber after adjourning the
House for 28.03.16.
vi.

Sh. Ajay Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition

had informed the Honble Governor on
telephone at about 8.00 p.m. that the
Government has fallen and that he was
coming to Raj Bhavan with his suupporters.

vii.

At 11.30 p.m., 35 MLAs including Sh. Ajay

Bhatt, Leader of the Opposition along with
34 MLAs called upon the Governor and
handed over a letter signed by 35 MLAs

stating that the Appropriation Bill had not

been passed. Since the Appropriation Bill
had not been passed, the Government had
fallen and needed to be dismissed. There
were only 68 members present in the
House while 35 were with them and they
had all opposed the Appropriation Bill. They
also claimed that in addition to these 35
MLAs, they also had support of at least 3
more MLAs viz. Sh. Ganesh Joshi (in police
custody), Sh. Bheem Lal Arya of BJP and
Sh. Sarwat Karim Ansari (BSP).
viii.

The Honble Speaker had claimed the

Appropriation Bill passed by voice vote,
finality of such a decision etc.

ix.

It is also stated that till date i.e. till the date

of

writing

of

this

communication

on

26.03.16, the Appropriation Bill 2016-17

had not been forwarded by the Speaker to
the Governor.
x.

The Honble Governor has also stated in

this report dated 26.03.16 that in the
meantime he had also examined the
proceedings of the Uttarakhand Vidhan
Sabha of March 18, as conveyed by the
Honble

Speaker

under

his

signature,

alongwith

the

video

recording

of

the

relevant time. A perusal of the proceedings

had made it clear that at the time of passing
of Uttarakhand Appropriation Bill 2016-17, a
demand was made under rule 296(1) for a
vote by division, but neither a division took
place, nor voting by show of hands, as
provided in the rules. The Appropriation Bill
was passed in din and chaos without any
specific vote in favour or against the Motion
getting recorded.
While setting out certain other aspects in
this communication dt. 26.03.16, it had been
stated that even though the veracity of the video
presented in the pen drive, is yet to be fully
established, it is prima facie obvious that plans
had been afoot to indulge in horse trading of
MLAs and the then Honble Chief Minister is party
to such machinations. A serious apprehension
was also expressed with regard to conduct of the
proceedings on 28.03.16. It has been stated that
in the given situation and the surcharged
atmosphere, it is possible that the Assembly
proceedings on 28th March, may unruly, chaotic
and violent.
During the arguments and in response to

a query it was submitted to this Honble Court that

on 26.03.2016, the Central Government (with a
covering letter dt. 26.03.2016 signed by the
Director in the Secretariat

of the Honble

President) had received a communication dt.

26.03.2016 addressed by the BJP to the Honble
President, inter alia, submitting therein about the
then Honble Chief Minister indulging in horse
trading in relation to MLAs both belonging to
Congress as well as BJP and that MLAs and their
family members are being threatened etc. This
communication was also part of the original
record submitted before the Honble High Court
on 04.04.2016 alongwith the counter affidavit of
the Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition in the
High Court.
26.03.2016

That after the receipt of the above-mentioned

report / communication dt. 26.03.16 from the
Honble Governor, a note for the Cabinet had
been prepared on 26.03.16. In the background of
various communications / reports received from
the Honble Governor from 19.03.16 onwards, the
details about the recent political developments in
the State and also the aspects highlighted by the
Pen Drive indicating horse trading - had been
mentioned therein. Non-holding of the division of

vote on the Appropriation Bill 2016-17, the then

Honble Chief Minister not acceding to the
repeated requests of the Honble Governor for
securing vote of confidence expeditiously, in
order to win over support by allurements etc. one
BJP MLA Sh. B.L. Arya had been made the Vice
President of Ambedkar Jayanti Samaroh Samiti,
Sh. B.L. Arya of BJP remaining absent from the
assembly proceedings on 18.03.16 were also
incorporated in the note for the Cabinet..
Subsequently,

on

21.04.16,

on

behalf

of

Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition (UOI), it had

been submitted before the Honble Court that the
statement with regard to disqualification against
Sh. B.L. Arya being not dealt with evenly, was a
mistake of fact and would not be relevant.

The

contents of the Pen Drive showing clearly the

then Chief Minister in the video and the
conversation for monetary and other allurements
was also incorporated in the Cabinet Note. The
aspect that the defeat of the Appropriation Bill
2016-17 on the floor of the House would have
had led to the fall of the Government, the claim of
the failed Appropriation Bill having been passed
by the voice vote etc. were also included in the
said Note. The relevant factors, which had

become available on record of the Govt. of India,

including that the failed Appropriation Bill had
been claimed to have been passed amounting to
continuation of Government not in accordance
with and contrary to the Constitution of India was
also mentioned.
The material becoming available to the
Government was also placed before the Cabinet
for approval of the recommendation to the
Honble President for proclamation under Article
356 of the Constitution of India on 26.03.2016.
27.03.2016

On 26.03.16, the recommendation of the Cabinet

was forwarded to the Honble President and had
been approved by the Honble President on
27.03.16. On 27.03.16, at about 4.30 p.m. the
proclamation issued by the Honble President
under Article 356 of the Constitution, was notified
vide a gazette notification. A copy of the gazette
notification of Presidential Proclamation dated 2703-2016 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P1. (Page ____ to ____)
Upon

issuance

of

notification

under

Article 356 on 27.03.2016, the Chief Secretary,

State

of

Uttarakhand

had

also

issued

notification on 27.03.2016 itself whereby the

entire Council of Ministers of the erstwhile State

Govt. were relieved from the Government.

However this order had not been filed with the
writ petition and also there was no challenge to
the same.
27.03.2016

The audio and video recordings which had

become available to the Govt. on 26.03.16 had
been forwarded to the CFSL on the same day.
On 27.03.16, the CFSL later in the day and
after the decision on the Proclamation, had
forwarded its report dt. 27.03.16 certifying that the
examination of audio and video files had
disclosed that the audio recordings of the files are
in continuity and not containing any signs of
editing / tampering. It has further been found and
certified by the CFSL that video and audio file is
also in continuity and free from editing /
morphing.

28.03.2016

On 28.03.2016, the Honble Governor had sent

another report to the Honble President, inter alia,
stating that the voting on the Appropriation Bill did
not take place on 18.03.2016. The Appropriation
Bill was never sent by the Honble Speaker to the
Honble Governor for assent, before the issuance
of notification under Article 356 of the Constitution
of India on 27.03.2016. The Honble Governor
has stated that the Appropriation Bill from the

Honble Speaker was received only on the

28.03.2016 when the Assembly has already been
suspended vide notification dated 27.03.2016
issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of
India. The Honble Governor has also stated that
it has not been possible for him to give assent to
the Bill. Having regard to the fact of closure of the
financial year on 31st March, there is almost an
emergency situation

and

accordingly taking

recourse to the procedure provided in Article 357

(1)(c), the Vote on Account for 4 months, i.e. from
1st April to 31st July 2016, was sent by the Honble
Governor

for

authorization

by

the

Honble

President.
It becomes clear that since the Honble
Speaker had also understood that any claim for
passing of the Appropriation Bill, when it had
failed would be void and a nullity, the said
Appropriation Bill had not been forwarded to the
Honble Governor before the issuance of the
notification under Article 356 of the Constitution of
India. An Appropriation Bill, if it is legally and
validly passed, cannot be kept back and is
required to be forwarded immediately to the
Honble Governor. In the present case, it is only
after the proclamation under Article 356 was

notified on 27.03.2016, the Honble Governor has

stated in his report dated 28.03.2016 that he had
received the Appropriation Bill on 28.03.2016. It is
respectfully submitted that the claim - of passing
of the Appropriation Bill 2016-17, when it had
failed

as

having

stood

established

by

documentary evidence, is void ab initio, nullity

having no existence in the eyes of law.
28.03.2016: The erstwhile Chief Minister of the State of
Uttarakhand, i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein
filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P. No.795 of 2016
[M/s] dated 28.03.2016 praying for, inter alia,
issuance

of

Proclamation

appropriate
dated

Writ

27.3.2016

quashing
issued

the

under

Article 356 of the Constitution of India bearing F.

No.V/11013/2/2016-CSR.I and the consequent
Notification thereof.
prayed

for

Respondent No.1 further

direction

for

restoring

the

Government of Indian National Congress (INC)

headed by Respondent No.1 along with his
Council of Ministers to office and revive and
reactivate

the

third

Uttarakhand

Legislative

Assembly.
Along with the aforesaid writ petition, the
Respondent No.1 also made an application for

stay of the proclamation dated 27.3.2016 and

also prayed for an appropriate direction in terms
of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
in Jagdambika Pal (1999) 9 SCC 95 for holding a
floor test in order to prove the majority of the
Respondent No.1 on the Floor of the House.
It is pertinent to note that the said writ
petition along with application for interim relief /
stay

was

mentioned

by

the

Counsel

of

Respondent No.1 for urgent listing before the

Hon'ble Uttarakhand Court. The said writ petition
was accordingly taken up by the Honble High
Court at about 12.30 pm on 28.3.2016 when the
counsels for the petitioner argued on the
application for interim stay / relief for the entire
day.
29.03.2016: On 29.03.2016, counsel for the Petitioner Union
of India appeared before the Honble High Court,
and it was categorically submitted on behalf of
Union of India that they would deserve an
opportunity to file its counter affidavit and had
further submitted that in view of the law laid
down by this Honble Court,
i. even before issuing notice, opportunity was
required to be granted to the Central Government

to file an affidavit to demonstrate that no prima

facie case had been made out by the writ
petitioner.
ii. there was no permissibility for granting any
interim relief in respect of the said Proclamation
on the ground that as per the authoritative dicta
of the Hon'ble 9 Judges Bench of this Hon'ble
Court laid down in the case of SR Bommai vs UOI
1994 [3] SCC 1 it would be wholly impermissible
either to interdict the issuance of proclamation
and / or its operation till the final verdict on its
validity is pronounced.
It was further submitted that as per the
mandatory procedure laid down by this Honble
Court, following the binding principle laid down in
S.R.Bommai (supra), vide orders dated 10.6.2005
and 25.7.2005 passed by this Honble Court in
the matter of Rameshwar Prasad vs UOI [W.P.
(c) No.257/2005], it was incumbent upon the
Hon'ble High Court to, even before issuing notice
in the matter, require the Central Government to
file an affidavit to bring on record its objections
that the writ petitioner had failed to discharge the
burden of making out the very strong prima facie
case as required in a challenge to an Article 356

Proclamation. It was submitted that at that stage,

neither would the Court issue any notice before
granting opportunity to the Central Government
to file its counter affidavit, nor would it be
permissible to pass any interim order interdicting
the issuance and / or operation of the Presidential
Proclamation.
Written Submissions were also prepared
and submitted on behalf of the Union of India at
the time of hearing and submitted before the
Honble High Court on 29.03.2016 (on account of
a typographical error, typed as dated 28.03.2016
instead of 29.03.2016).
29.03.2016: On

29th

March

2016

itself,

the

Hon'ble

Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital disposed of

the application for interim relief / stay filed by
Respondent No.1 herein in Writ Petition No. 795
(M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish Chandra Singh
Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr. - and directing,
inter

alia,

that

the

Uttarakhand

Legislative

Assembly be convened on 31.03.2016 for putting

the Vote of Confidence to floor test, where
disqualified MLAs would also participate and that
the result of the vote of confidence shall be kept
in a sealed cover, and that the votes of the

disqualified Member shall be kept separately thereby

interdicting

with

the

Presidential

Proclamation dated 27.03.2016 issued by the

Honble President of India under Article 356 of
the

Constitution of India, which is wholly

impermissible in view of the authoritative dicta

propounded by this Honble Court in the case of
S.R. Bommai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
(1994) 3 SCC 1.
Copy of the order date 29.03.2016 passed by the
Ld. Single Judge of the Honble Uttarakhand High
Court is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P2.
(Page ____ to ____).

It was thereafter i.e.

subsequently when the opportunity for filing the

detailed counter affidavit had been granted that it
was found that gross misstatements, suppression
of material facts to mislead the Honble Court for
securing an interim order, had been made by the
petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition had
deserved dismissal at the threshold itself.
29.03.2016

In exercise of powers under Article 85(2)(a) of

the Constitution of India, the Honble President
had been pleased to prorogue the Lok Sabha.

30.03.2016

In exercise of powers under Article 85(2)(a) of

the Constitution of India, the Honble President
had been pleased to prorogue the Rajya Sabha.

30.03.2016

In the morning of 30.03.2016, an appeal, by and

on behalf of Union of India being Special
Appeal No. 64 of 2016, was filed before the
Honble High Court at Nainital, impugning the
order passed by the Ld. Single Judge on
29.03.2016.
Another appeal being Special Appeal
No. 63 of 2016 was also filed by Smt. Indira
Hridayesh, impugning the Ld. Single Judges
order dated 29.03.2016.

before

These

two

Appeals

the

Honble

the

were
Chief

mentioned
Justice

of

Uttarakhand High Court at 10.15 am for urgent

listing and hearing. Thereafter, the appeals were
taken up by the Ld. Division Bench of the Honble
High Court at 12.00 pm.
After the counsel for all parties had been
heard by the Ld. Division Bench of the Honble
High

Court

at

considerable

length,

on

suggestion made on behalf of Union of India

which was agreed to by all parties, the Ld.
Division Bench of the Honble High Court passed
its order dt. 30.03.2016, inter alia, withdrawing
the writ petition (WPMS No. 795 of 2016) to itself
so that the matter may be finally disposed of and

the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Ld.

Single Judge was directed to be put in abeyance
till 07.04.2016.
Copy of the order date 30.03.2016
passed by the Honble Uttarakhand High Court is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P3. (Page
____ to ____).
31.03.2016

Having regard to the report / communication of

the Honble Governor dt. 28.03.16, it was
observed that an emergent situation had arisen
since, in the absence of a validly passed
Appropriation

Bill

becoming

law,

the

administration of State of Uttarakhand would

have been unable to appropriate any funds from
the Consolidated Fund of the State with effect
from 01.04.2016. In order to take immediate
action for the purpose of timely compliance of the
financial business of the State of Uttarakhand,
the Uttarakhand Appropriation (Vote on Account)
Ordinance 2016 was promulgated by the Honble
President of India on 31.03.2016. It was with a
view to prevent an economic crisis / chaos in the
State of Uttarakhand.
01.04.2016

Another Writ Petition being W.P. 856 of 2016,

was filed by Respondent No.1 before the Honble

Uttarakhand High Court, praying for, inter alia,

quashing of the promulgation of the Ordinance
dated 31.03.2016.
04.04.2016

The Honble High Court had fixed a schedule for

filing of counter affidavit by the Respondents in
WP No. 795/2016 by 04.04.2016.

In complete

compliance and in full cooperation with the

schedule fixed by the Honble High Court, the
Respondent No. 1 had filed its counter affidavit
on 04.04.16 and had simultaneously on the
same day, had tendered in a sealed envelope,
the original file of the Govt. of India before the
Honble High Court with the prayer that the
documents contained therein would not deserve
to be shared with the petitioner before the
Honble High Court. The respondent had filed its
rejoinder affidavit on 05.04.16.
06.04.2016

Detailed oral arguments were submitted on

And

behalf of Respondent No.1 (Petitioner before the

07.04.2016

Honble

High

Court)

on

06.04.2016

and

07.04.2016. At about 3.30 p.m. on 7.4.2016, a

fresh application on behalf of Respondent No.1
was presented before the Honble High Court with
the prayer that in the event, during the recess of
the

Honble

High Court

from 09.04.16

till

17.04.2016, a decision is taken to revoke the

Presidential

Proclamation

then

the

Honble

Governor must invite only the petitioner in the

writ petition to prove majority and will not invite
BJP to form the govt.
The maintainability of this application was
vehemently opposed on behalf of Union of India,
inter alia, on the ground that the Honble
Governor is not a party to the writ petition and in
any case no notice or direction could be issued
against the Honble Governor and it was also
submitted

that

there

would

not

be

any

permissibility for the Honble Court to pass any

order interjecting the constitutional authorities
and also the process of political democracy to
have its full action and full play in accordance
with the scheme of the Constitution.
However, when the matter was reaching
towards the end of the hearing on 07.04.16, a
statement had been made, by the ld. Attorney
General of India - on behalf of Union of India that
the Honble High Court would be informed in case
any action becomes necessary to be taken by the
Govt. of India before 17.04.16 i.e. till the recess
of the Court and when the Court was to

commence the hearing of the arguments of the

ld. Attorney General of India on 18.04.16.
18.04.2016, Detailed oral arguments were submitted before
19.04.2016, the Honble High Court on behalf of Union of
20.04.2016

India on 18.04.2016, 19.04.2016 and 20.04.2016.

It is submitted that the ld. Attorney General of
India had made his submissions on 18.04.16 and
19.04.16 and had taken leave of the Honble
Court on the conclusion of his arguments. Till this
time of the ld. Attorney General of India leaving
the Court on 19.04.16, there was no mention of
any kind whatsoever on behalf of the petitioner
before the High Court, with regard to the
Statement made by the ld. Attorney General of
India on 07.04.16, as submitted above.

21.04.2016

On 21.04.2016, it was submitted on behalf of the

Union of India before the Honble High Court that
the

statement

which

had

been

made

on

07.04.2016 (that if any action would be required

to be taken by the Union of India during the
recess of the Honble High Court, the same would
be informed to the Honble Court) was to
operate

only

till

the

resumption

of

Court

proceedings on 18.04.16.
On

21.04.2016,

vide

its

impugned

judgment [pronounced in open court], it has

been informed that the Honble High Court has
been pleased to quash the Proclamation dated
27.03.2016 issued by the Honble President of
India under Article 356 of the Constitution. The
Honble High Court, inter alia, directed as under:i. Status quo as on 27.03.2016, i.e. the
date

when

the

impugned

Presidential

proclamation was issued shall be maintained.

ii. Floor test shall be held in the
Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha on 29.04.2016.
It is most respectfully submitted that the
impugned judgment of the Honble High Court is
contrary to the settled principles of law laid down
by this Honble Court and the Honble High
Courts. The Honble High Court has exceeded the
limited scope of judicial review of Presidential
proclamation issued under Article 356 of the
Constitution of India as laid down in various
judicial pronouncements of this Honble Court and
the

Honble

High

Courts.

The

impugned

judgment, being contrary to the settled principles

of law, deserves to be set aside by this Honble
Court.
It is humbly submitted that the impugned

judgment of the Honble High Court has been

pronounced in open Court and a copy thereof has
not become available. The petitioner has already
applied for a certified copy of the impugned
judgment. There is an imminent urgency to
challenge

the

legality

and

validity

of

the

impugned judgment by filing the present SLP. It

is due to the urgency in the present matter and
the paucity of time that the present Special Leave
Petition is being filed by the Petitioner without
annexing a copy of the impugned judgment,
which has not become available. The present
Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis
of

the

telephonic

conversation

and

communication received from the counsel for the

Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor General for
India at the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at
Nainital. Copy of the letter dated 21.04.2016 sent
by the Asst. Solicitor General for India is placed
alongwith the present Special Leave Petition.
The petitioner craves leave of this Honble
Court for permission to file the present Special
Leave Petition without the impugned judgment.
The petitioner undertakes to place on record the
copy of the impugned judgment immediately on

its becoming available.

It is further submitted that the present
SLP is being filed only on the basis of the
communication dt. 21.04.2016 of the Assistant
Solicitor General of India, Uttarakhand and the
petitioner further seeks leave of this Honble
Court to alter / modify / add / amend the present
SLP with additional and further grounds upon
perusing of the impugned judgment passed by
the Honble High Court.
22.04.2016: Hence, the present Special Leave Petition.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Under Order XVI Rule 4(1)(a)]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
(With prayer for Interim Relief)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____OF 2016

POSITION OF PARTIES
In the Honble
High Court

In this Honble
Court

BETWEEN:
Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi 110001

Respondent No. 1

Petitioner

Versus,
1.

2.

To

Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat

s/o Late Rajendra Singh Rawat
r/o Bijapur Guest House
Garhi Cantt Dehradun
Dehradun 248001
Petitioner

Contesting
Respondent

State of Uttarakhand
Through Chief Secretary
Secretariat, 4 Subhash Road
Dehradun 248001
Uttarakhand
Respondent No. 2

Proforma
Respondent

The Honble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India.
The Petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1.1

The present Special Leave Petition is being filed against

the impugned final judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by
the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ
Petition No. 795 (M/S) of 2016 titled as Shri Harish
Chandra Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India & Anr.

1.2

Vide the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2016, the

Honble High Court has erroneously allowed the writ
petition [being W.P. No. 795 of 2016] - and as informed,
the Honble High Court has been pleased to, inter alia,
quash the Presidential Proclamation dated 27.03.2016
issued by the Honble President of India under Article 356
of the Constitution of India.

1.3

It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of the

Honble High Court has been pronounced in open Court
and a copy thereof has not become available. The
petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the
impugned judgment. There is an imminent urgency to
challenge the legality and validity of the impugned
judgment by filing the present SLP. It is due to the
urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that
the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the
Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned
judgment, which has not become available. The present
Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis of the

telephonic conversation and communication received from

the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor
General for India at the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at
Nainital. Copy of the letter dated 21.04.2016 sent by the
Asst. Solicitor General for India has been placed alongwith
the present SLP.
The petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court
for permission to file the present Special Leave Petition
without

the

impugned

judgment.

The

petitioner

undertakes to place on record the copy of the impugned

judgment immediately on its becoming available.
It is further submitted that the present SLP is being
filed only on the basis of the telephonic conversation and
communication dt. 21.04.2016 of the Assistant Solicitor
General of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further
seeks leave of this Honble Court to alter / modify / add /
amend the present SLP with additional and further
grounds upon perusing of the impugned judgment
passed by the Honble High Court.
It is most respectfully submitted that the impugned
judgment dt. 21.04.2016 is unsustainable in law, being
contrary to the principles of law laid down by this Honble
Court and the Honble High Courts, and therefore the
impugned judgment would deserve to be set aside by this
Honble Court.

2.

QUESTIONS OF LAW

2.1

Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India could entertain any writ petition
wherein it had been demonstrated, ex facie, that the writ
petitioner had indulged in making false statements in the
writ petition and also suppression of material facts,
twisting of material facts only with a view to mislead the
Honble Court and securing for itself an interim order ?

2.2

Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India having regard to the established
fact demonstrating, ex facie, that the writ petitioner had
indulged in making false statements in the writ petition
and also suppression of material facts, twisting of material
facts only with a view to mislead the Honble Court and
securing for itself an interim order was not obliged to
dismiss the writ petition at the threshold itself ?

2.3

Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India was justified and permitted under the
constitutional scheme to judicially review the satisfaction
of the Council of Ministers and the Honble President
arrived at on the basis of the relevant material - under
Article 356 of the Constitution of India ?

2.4

Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India was justified and permitted under the
constitutional scheme to enter into the aspect of
sufficiency and authenticity of the material which was

placed before the Council of Minister and the Honble

President for arriving at the satisfaction for imposition of
Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution of
India?
2.5

Whether the Honble High Court has failed to appreciate

the limited scope of judicial review which is available in
relation to Presidential Proclamations issued under Article
356 of the Constitution of India as laid down by this
Honble Court in various judicial pronouncements?

2.6

Whether the impugned order passed by the Honble High

Court is completely unsustainable in law, being contrary to
the law laid down by this Honble Court in various
pronouncements, including the judgment of this Honble
Court in S.R.Bommai (supra)?

3.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave
to Appeal has been filed by the Petitioner against the
impugned judgment before this Honble Court.

4.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The Annexures produced along with Special Leave Petition
are true copies of the records of the Courts below and
forms part of the record of the Courts below against
whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this
Petition.

GROUNDS:

5.1

Because the impugned judgment passed by the Honble

High Court is contrary to the principles of law laid down by
this Honble Court in relation to exercise of Article 356 of
the Constitution of India. The impugned judgment
deserves to be set aside.

5.2

Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that in

view of the settled principles of law laid down by this
Honble Court, the scope of judicial review of Presidential
Proclamation issued under Article 356 is narrow and
limited the Honble Court can only examine the
relevancy of the material placed before the Honble
President of India; the adequacy, sufficiency, truth or
correctness of the material cannot be looked into by the
Honble Court.

5.3

Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that

the Honble Court cannot sit as an appellate forum over
the Proclamation which is issued by the Honble President
of India on his subjective satisfaction based on the
material placed before him including the report of the
Honble

Governor

and

also

otherwise.

It

is

most

respectfully submitted that it would be impermissible for

the Honble Court to substitute its own satisfaction in place
of the satisfaction of the Honble President of India.
5.4

Because the Honble High Court erroneously held that

there is no material or circumstance of a single incident

which warranted the imposition of Presidents Rule. It is

most respectfully submitted that the Proclamation dated
27.03.2016 has been issued by the Honble President of
India after considering the various relevant material
placed before him including, inter alia, the various
reports of the Honble Governor, the fact that a failed
Appropriation Bill [against which division of vote was
demanded by the 35 MLAs constituting majority on the
floor of the House on 18.03.2016] is being claimed to
have been passed, the video/audio recordings of the
sitting Chief Minister in relation to discussions of
money/allurements being offered to MLAs, horse trading
etc. and arriving at the satisfaction that the State
Government of Uttarakhand cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of
India.
5.5

Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that

the allegations of horse trading against the then sitting
Honble Chief Minister apart from being substantiated by
the audio/video recordings in the pen drive received in the
office of the Honble Governor [along with a transcript
thereof] were also corroborated by the communication
dated 26.03.2016 received in the office of the Honble
Governor from the same dissident MLA in relation to
whom the discussion of offers of money / allurement had
been made in the said audio/video recordings. That the

contents of the pen drive containing the said audio/video

recordings had also been authenticated by CFSL on
27.03.2016.
5.6

Because the Honble High Court, even after observing that

there was no sympathy for corruption and therefore the
Court shall not be precluded from taking action as per law
on the basis of the sting operation, proceeded to not only
grant indulgence under Article 226, but also grant relief to
the Writ Petitioner against whom the sting operation had
been produced in relation to allegations of horse trading
and discussing money/allurements to be offered to MLAs.

5.7

Because the Honble High Court committed an error in not

appreciating the fact that willful, deliberate suppression of
material facts, untrue and incorrect statements designed
and engineered by the petitioner only with a view to
mislead the Honble High Court had been incorporated in
the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition had deserved to be
dismissed at the threshold itself.

5.8

Because the Honble High Court erroneously held that

failing of the Appropriation Bill would not mean falling of
the Government, as long as the Government does not
resign. It is most respectfully submitted that failing of an
Appropriation Bill is an expression of no confidence against
the Government, and allowing a Government which has
lost the confidence of the majority - to continue in office
for even a single day, would be an act in utter disregard of

the Constitution and would only lead to the conclusion

that the government in the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of
India.
5.9

Because the Honble High Court erroneously held that

there is no challenge to the Appropriation Bill which has
been claimed to have been passed by voice vote by the
Honble Speaker. Such a claim was void ab initio and an
absolute nullity.

5.10 Because the Honble High Court has committed an error in

law by observing that the Honble Governor had no
authority to send the memorandum demanding division of
vote to the Honble Speaker. This observation of the
Honble High Court is unsustainable in law, being contrary
to the settled principles laid down by this Honble Court
and the Honble High Courts.
5.11 Because the Honble High Court erred in law in holding
that there is no material and further there is no
circumstance

of

single

incident,

which

warrant

invocation of Article 356 in the present case.

5.12 Because the Honble High Court failed to apply the
principles of law laid down by this Honble Court for
dealing with such cases where it is ex-facie apparent on
the face of the record that Respondent No.1 had indulged
in making, deliberate and willful false statements on oath
in the Writ Petition and the Writ Petition had been

founded on such false statements, only with a view to

mislead the Honble High Court so as to steal an order in
his favour by Respondent No.1. It is an admitted position
that Respondent No.1 had made deliberate and willful
false and misleading statements in the Writ Petition,
including in para 16 to 23 thereof and had disentitled
himself from any indulgence and / or relief from the
Honble

High

Court

under

its

Extraordinary

Writ

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5.13 Because the Honble High Court failed to apply the law laid
down by this Honble Court that if it is found that the writ
petitioner had not come with clean hands and had
indulged in making false statements on oath, not only the
Writ Petition filed by him had deserved dismissal at the
threshold itself, the act of making willful and deliberate
false statements in the Writ Petition with a view to steal
an order from the Honble High Court would also
constitute causing obstruction in the administration of
justice.
5.14 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
Respondent No.1 had willfully misled the Honble High
Court by stating on oath in the Writ Petition that there
were never any demands for Division of Votes on the
Appropriation

Bill

before

the

passing

of

the

said

Appropriation Bill in the Assembly on 18.3.2016.

The

entire Writ Petition is founded on this statement and the

entire projection in the Writ Petition by Respondent No.1

was to the effect that when the Appropriation Bill was
taken up by the Assembly on 18.3.2016, neither before
nor during the consideration of the Appropriation Bill for
its passing there was any demand for Division of Vote.
This singular plea of the petitioner in the writ petition
being the foundation of the entire writ petition, was belied
by Respondent No.1 himself, after it was admitted in the
arguments before the Honble High Court that even as per
the case of the writ petitioner the demand for Division of
Vote had been made by 27 MLAs (as per the Union of
India it was 35 MLAs) not only before but also at the time
when the Appropriation Bill was taken up in the House at
about 7.30 pm on 18.3.2016 and the said Division of Vote
demanded by 35 Members, was not carried out by the
Honble Speaker. In the light of the admission made on
behalf of Respondent No.1 herein (petitioner before the
High Court) during the final arguments on 20.4.2016 that
according to Respondent No.1, 27 MLAs had made the
demand for Division at the time when the Appropriation
Bill was taken up before the Assembly, the Writ Petition
had deserved to be dismissed by the Honble High Court at
the threshold itself.
5.15 Because the High Court failed to appreciate that
Respondent No.1 was physically present in the Assembly
on 18.3.2016. The demand for Division of Vote by the

Members had been made at 7.30 PM when the

Appropriation Bill was taken up and Respondent No.1 was
physically present in the House. It has also been admitted
that the demand by 27 Members of the BJP at 10.30 AM
on 18.3.2016 for Division of Vote of Appropriation Bill had
also been received by the Honble Speaker at 11.10 am on
18.3.2016. Despite Respondent No.1 being fully conscious
and aware about these true facts, yet with a view to
mislead the Honble Court and on such misleading of the
Honble High Court, he was able to secure the interim
order passed on 29.3.2016 that the Writ Petition had
deserved dismissal at the threshold itself.
5.16 Because the Respondent No.1 had demonstrated beyond
any doubt on the record of the writ proceedings that he
had made a number of untrue statements in the Writ
Petition. In para 4 of the Writ Petition it had been stated
that the Honble Governor had fixed the date of 28.3.2016
for the meeting of the House. This statement made by
the petitioner in the Writ Petition was false to his
knowledge

inasmuch

as

the

Honble

Speaker

on

18.3.2016, at the time of the alleged conclusion of the

proceedings at 7.43 pm, had adjourned the session of the
House to 28.3.2016 and when the session of the House
was to continue till 21.3.2016.
5.17 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
Respondent No.1 had changed his position from the date

of filing of the Writ Petition till the date of conclusion of

the arguments on 20.4.2016. The stand of Respondent
No.1 has remained inconsistent, apparently, Respondent
No.1 was fully conscious and aware that it was obligatory
on the part of the Honble Speaker to carry out the
Division of Vote on 18.3.2016 and the Appropriation Bill
had not been passed. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the requirement of Division of Vote
under Rule 296 of the Uttarakhand Assembly Procedure
Rules was mandatory. Admittedly, the Honble Speaker
did not follow the mandatory Rule 296 which provides
for Division of Vote on a demand being made by a single
MLA. It had been submitted on behalf of Union of India
that 35 MLAs (out of 68 MLAs present in the House on
18.03.2016, including the Honble Speaker) had demanded
Division of Vote when the Appropriation Bill was taken up
on 18.3.2016.
5.18 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
Rule 185 of the said Rules had no applicability in the
present case. Further, Rule 185 does not control in any
manner whatsoever, the operation of Rule 296 and
further, admittedly, there was no suspension order by the
Honble Speaker for the operation of the requirement of
Rule 296, meaning thereby that the carrying out of the
Division of Vote was not only mandatory but it was
absolutely imperative on the part of the Speaker.

5.19 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that

the act of the Honble Governor, requiring his Secretary for
forwarding the Memorandum submitted by 27 MLAs of the
BJP at 10.30 AM on 18.3.2016 [demanding division of vote
on the Appropriation Bill 2016-17] to the Honble
Speaker was, in fact, a message under Article 175 of the
Constitution of India, thereby making it obligatory on the
part of the Honble Speaker to carry out the Division of
Vote on the Appropriation Bill.
5.20 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
non-mentioning of the provision of Article 175 on the
covering letter of 18.3.2016 of the Secretary to the
Honble Governor was not irregularity or omission and
especially when the Honble Governor, on his arriving back
to his office at 1.00 pm in the afternoon of 18.3.2016 and
had endorsed the carrying out of his direction by his
Secretary on 18.3.2016. It is most humbly submitted that
it is the settled position of law, as laid down by this
Honble Court in various judicial pronouncements, that
non-mentioning of a provision under which power has
been exercised would not make any difference so long
as the power can be traced to any provision under law.
5.21 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
even otherwise, i.e., without prejudice to the submission
that forwarding letter dated 18.3.2016 by the Secretary of
the Honble Governor on the direction of Governor, was a

message under Article 175 of the Constitution of India,

even otherwise the carryout out of the Division of Vote on
the Appropriation Bill in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, was an absolute imperative even on the
correction operation and implementation of the provision
of Rule 296. Admittedly, there was no suspension order
with regard to the operation of Rule 296 which had been
passed by the Honble Speaker, inasmuch as he was
aware that in view of the facts and circumstances, there
was neither any occasion nor any permissibility for him to
pass any such suspension order.
5.22 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
the demand for the Division of Vote at 10.30 AM by 27
Members of the BJP, and at 7.30 PM in the Assembly by
35 members of the Assembly at the time when the
Appropriation Bill was taken up, was itself an expression of
No Confidence in the Government and the Appropriation
Bill, being a Money Bill had failed.

The State

Government in power had stood rendered as a minority

having

no

legitimacy

or

entitlement

of

any

whatsoever, to continue to remain in place.

kind

It had

become not possible to carry out functioning of the

Government in accordance with the Constitution of India
and

invocation

of

Article

356,

in

the

facts

and

circumstances of the present case, on 27.3.2016 was

entirely valid, legal and constitutional.

5.23 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that

the relevant material was available before the Council of
Ministers and before the Honble President. In accordance
with the principles of law laid down by this Honble Court,
the limited judicial scrutiny was to come to an end when
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1,
submitted on 4.4.2016 along with original file disclosing
therein the relevant material considered in the process of
invoking jurisdiction under Article 356 of the Constitution
of India.
5.24 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that it
was neither permissible nor legal, either for the petitioner
or the Honble Speaker, to agitate and claim that in
relation to proceedings in the House, even when they are
illegal and unconstitutional, the decision of the Honble
Speaker is supreme and there is absolute immunity from
any judicial review / interference by the Honble Court
under Article 212 of the Constitution of India.
5.25 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
the

provision

of

Article

212

had

no

applicability

whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of the present

case and the deliberate inaction on the part of the Honble
Speaker to not to carry out the Division of Vote on the
Appropriation Bill on 18.3.2016 had definitely resulted in
the illegal continuation of a minority Government in
power, thereby fulfilling the requirement of Article 356 of

the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of

the present case.
5.26 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
ample material was available on the record which had
demonstrated that the Honble Speaker, along with one of
the BJP MLAs, namely, Shri Bhim Lal Arya, had been won
over by the Congress Party. The inadvertent mistake of
fact which stood submitted before the Honble High Court
on behalf of Union of India that the Honble Speaker was
partisan in not dealing with the disqualification petition
filed against the BJP MLAs (clarified before the Honble
High Court on 21.04.16), the said BJP MLA had remained
absent from the House on 18.3.2016 and the inadvertent
mistake on the part of Union of India, even when required
to be considered as irrelevant, could not have cast any
doubt on the relevance of the entire material, which was
available for consideration before the Council of Ministers
and before the Honble President.
5.27 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
even as per the writ petitioner, there were 9 rebel
Congress MLAs even before the Appropriation Bill was
taken up in the House, on 18.03.16, further that 35 MLAs
had signed a joint Memorandum at 11.30 PM on
18.3.2016 submitted to the Honble Governor to the effect
that they had demanded Division of Vote on the floor of
the House inside the Assembly when the Appropriation Bill

was taken up, and that Division of Vote had not been
carried out.
5.28 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
neither

was

there

any

Division

of

Vote

on

the

Appropriation Bill on 18.3.2016, nor was there any show

of hands and, perhaps, nor any voice vote and the
Appropriation Bill, being a Money Bill, had failed and
thereby the erstwhile Government had lost the confidence
of the majority.
5.29 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
the demand of Division on the Appropriation Bill by 35
Members inside the Assembly at 7.30 pm was an admitted
position on the writing on the contents of the Writ Petition
itself.

The Writ Petitioner himself had submitted in the

Writ Petition that there were 27 BJP MLAs and 9 rebel

Congress MLAs, even according to the writ petitioner, the
rebellion by 9 Congress MLAs had started much before the
taking up of the Appropriation Bill though the case of
the Petitioner herein is that 35 MLAs had demanded
Division of Vote inside the House, Respondent No.1 made
a deliberate and willful false statement, repeatedly, in the
Writ Petition including in para 16 thereof, that there was
no demand of Division of Vote on the Appropriation Bill
before the Appropriation Bill was passed on 18.3.2016.
During the oral hearing on 20.4.2016 it was admitted on
behalf of the petitioner that 27 BJP MLAs had demanded

Division of vote inside the House. This admission itself, in

the respectful submission of the petitioner herein, was
sufficient for the Honble High Court to dismiss the Writ
Petition at the threshold itself, in applying the principles of
law laid down by this Honble Court.
5.30 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
the non-taking of the Division of Vote on the Appropriation
Bill by the Honble speaker on 18.3.2016 was entirely
unconstitutional and the High Court ought to have held
the same to be unconstitutional.
5.31 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
since the Appropriation Bill had failed, it was not
forwarded to the Honble Governor till 28.3.2016 when the
Proclamation under Article 356 had also stood issued on
27.3.2016.
5.32 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate the
settled principles of law laid down by this Honble Court
and the observations with reference to the extent of
Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation under Article
356

of the Constitution of India in the impugned

judgment

are

not

only

erroneous

but

are

also

unsustainable.
5.33 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate the
settled principles of law laid down by this Honble Court
with regard to illegal acts of a Speaker of an Assembly and
no immunity whatsoever available under Article 212 of the

Constitution of India. The observations made by the

Honble High Court in the impugned judgment in this
regard are not only erroneous but are also unsustainable.
5.34 Because the Honble High Court failed to appreciate that
even if it appears that some material placed for
consideration before the Council of Ministers and the
Honble President is either erroneous or mistaken the
same would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of
the Proclamation if there exists some material on record
relevant for arriving at the satisfaction for imposition of
Presidential Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of
India. The observations in this regard made by the Honble
High Court are not only erroneous but are also
unsustainable.
5.35 Because the impugned judgment has resulted in serious
miscarriage of justice. It is contrary to the principles
governing jurisdiction of the Honble High Court in relation
to challenge to any Proclamation under Article 356 of the
Constitution of India. The impugned judgment deserves to
be set aside and quashed by the orders of this Honble
Court.
5.36 Because nothing done in continuation of the impugned
judgment, would in any case either be permissible nor
would it be sustainable in the light of the binding
principles of law laid down by this Honble Court.

5.37 Because the High Court failed to appreciate that even

when the individual demand for grants had already stood
voted, it was still an absolute imperative that the
Appropriation Bill is taken up for voting for passing the
same to become a law without which no fund from the
Consolidate Fund of the State could at all become
available for discharging the functions by the State.
Passing of the Appropriation Bill is neither a formality nor
any

procedural

requirement,

however,

an

absolute

constitutional imperative in the absence whereof the

Appropriation Bill does not become a law and is
meaningless / inoperative for making any drawl of funds
from the Consolidated Fund of the State.
5.38 The present Special Leave to Appeal has been prepared in
an extreme urgency. At the time of preparation of the
present Special Leave to Appeal, the impugned judgment
had not become available and the grounds had been
prepared on the operative portion orally pronounced in the
Court, and therefore the Petitioner craves leave of this
Honble Court to add / modify further grounds in the
present appeal towards the challenge to the impugned
judgment.
5.39 It is humbly submitted that the impugned judgment of the
Honble High Court has been pronounced in open Court
and a copy thereof has not become available. The
petitioner has already applied for a certified copy of the

impugned judgment. There is an imminent urgency to

challenge the legality and validity of the impugned
judgment by filing the present SLP. It is due to the
urgency in the present matter and the paucity of time that
the present Special Leave Petition is being filed by the
Petitioner without annexing a copy of the impugned
judgment, which has not become available. The present
Special Leave Petition has been filed on the basis of the
telephonic conversation and communication received from
the counsel for the Union of India, i.e. the Asst. Solicitor
General for India at the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at
Nainital. Copy of the letter dated 21.04.2016 sent by the
Asst. Solicitor General for India is placed with the present
SLP.
5.40 The petitioner craves leave of this Honble Court for
permission to file the present Special Leave Petition
without

the

impugned

judgment.

The

petitioner

undertakes to place on record the copy of the impugned

judgment immediately on its becoming available.
5.41 It is further submitted that the present SLP is being filed
only on the basis of the telephonic conversation and
communication dt. 21.04.2016 of the Assistant Solicitor
General of India, Uttarakhand and the petitioner further
seeks leave of this Honble Court to alter / modify / add /
amend the present SLP with additional and further

grounds upon perusing of the impugned judgment

passed by the Honble High Court.
6.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

6.1

Because the Petitioner has a good prima facie case on

merits and the balance of convenience also lies in the
favor of the Petitioner.

6.2

Because gross injustice and irreparable loss is likely to be

caused to the Petitioner if the impugned judgment of the
Honble High Court is not stayed.

6.3

Because an oral request was made before the Honble

High Court on 21.04.16 for stay of the impugned
judgment till the filing of the present SLP but the same
was turned down by the Honble High Court.

7.

MAIN PRAYER:
In the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that
your lordships may graciously be pleased to:
(i)

Grant leave to appeal against the impugned

judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by the
Honble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

(ii)

And/or pass such other further orders, as this

Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of this case.

8.

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(i)

Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order staying the

operation and effect of the impugned judgment
dated 21.04.2016 passed by the Honble High Court

of Uttarakhand at Nainital till the pendency and final

disposal of the present Special Leave Petition;
(ii)

And/or pass such other further orders, as this

Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of this case.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound

shall ever pray.

FILED BY

(Anil Katiyar)
Advocate for the Petitioner

Drawn On: 21.04.2016

Filed On:

22.04.2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. _____OF 2016
(Arising from the Final Judgment dated 21.04.2016 passed by
the Honble Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital in Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 795/2016)

IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION OF INDIA

PETITIONER
Versus,

SH. HARISH CHANDRA SINGH RAWAT & ANR. RESPONDENTS

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to
the Pleadings before the Honble Uttarakhand High Court whose
orders are challenged and the other documents relied upon in
those proceedings and no additional facts, documents or
grounds have been taken herein. It is further certified that the
copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special
Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law
raised in the Petition or to make out grounds urged in the
Special leave Petition for consideration of this Honble Court.
The certificate is given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed
in support of the special Leave Petition.
(Anil Katiyar)
Advocate for the Petitioner
Filed On: 22.04.2016