NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the May 23 Presidential Proclamation dissolving the Bihar Assembly.

Allaying speculation, a five-judge Bench made it clear that it would not be possible for the court to pronounce a verdict touching various constitutional issues before October 18, which marks the first phase of polls in the State.

At the conclusion of six-day arguments, the Constitution Bench said if the court were to decide to quash the Proclamation, it would give a brief order before October 18 and pass a detailed order later on.

(The court closes for Dussehra vacation on October 8 and reopens on October 18).

To a question from the Bench what relief the court could give, senior counsel Soli Sorabjee, appearing for the petitioners, said the House should be kept in suspended animation to enable the formation of a government. If there was no possibility of government formation within a month or two, the State could go for fresh polls. If the Bench were to quash the Proclamation but was not inclined to grant the relief, it would send wrong signals to the Executive that it could do whatever it wanted and the court would not do anything.

Mr. Sorabjee assailed the Centre's stand that the Governor could prevent a group, which cobbled together a majority by "illegal and foul means," from staking claim to form a government. In an apparent reference to the United Progressive Alliance Government, he said, "there are people charged with heinous crimes and corruption holding office. Has the President said `no' to administering the oath of office to them? There are many other such instances in the States also."

Giving a specific instance, Mr. Sorabjee said even though Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was disqualified from contesting the polls, the Governor did not refuse to administer the oath of office to her. Counsel said the Governor was vested with no power to prevent a group from staking its claim to form a government even if he felt that a majority had been obtained by foul or unethical means.

Mr. Sorabjee said the Centre did not give any proper explanation for its "desperate haste" and troubling the President, who was then in Moscow, at dead of night to seek his approval for the dissolution.

It was clear from the record that that Governor Buta Singh was apprehensive that Nitish Kumar of the Janatal Dal (United) was likely to stake a claim to form a government and hence the "indecent haste."

Another counsel P.S. Narasimha contended that only a functional House could be dissolved. In this case since it was not at all constituted there was no question of dissolution. There was no provision in the Constitution to prevent the formation of the Legislature.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail