Updated

New Delhi, Apr 27 (PTI): The President's rule will continue in Uttarakhand and the April 29 floor test in the Assembly ordered by the High Court will not take place as the Supreme Court today extended its stay on the quashing of the Central rule.

Hearing the Centre's appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court judgement revoking President's rule, the apex court framed seven tough questions and even gave liberty to the Attorney General to include other questions the government would like to be addressed.

The bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh posted the matter for further hearing on May 3 amidst indication that the verdict may be pronounced before the court breaks for summer vacation by the middle of next month.

The bench made it clear that it was extending the stay on the Uttarakhand High Court verdict till further orders on the consent of parties.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rawat, said there was no question of opposing the bench's stand on continuing with the interim order staying the High Court's order for few more days.

During the hearing, the bench said possibly the answer to the current incident would ultimately be the floor test and asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to think over the questions and suggestions put forward by it.

"The matter has its own gravity and ultimately in such a case prima facie we have to sustain democracy and if we don't find merit with the President's rule then we will have to have a floor test.

"Therefore, as a constitutional concept unless we really vacate our order, not to say lift President's rule, we have to modify our order and have to say go for the floor test. Think over it," it said.

Attorney General said that he will think over it and inform the court.

The bench also said that this is an emergent situation.

While answering various questions Rohatgi, said President's rule will be operative for two months till May 27 and if it is upheld by the court, then to have a floor test will be the discreation of the government and if the President's rule is dismissed, it will be a case of non-existence of Central rule and in that event the direction to the governor will be to call for the floor test.

In a high-voltage hearing that commenced at 2pm in a packed court room, the bench, at the outset, took strong note of the plea of Uttarakhand Chief Secretary that he be also allowed put forth his views in the matter.

"What will the Chief Secretary do? Chief Secretary has nothing to do with the matter. What kind of affidavit he is going to file," the bench said.

The court then listed out seven questions which it wanted to deliberate upon during the course of the hearing and asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and others to assist it.

"Whether the Governor could have sent the message in the present manner under Article 175 (2) for conducting floor test," the bench said in its first question.

It further sought response on the question as to whether the disqualification of MLAs by the Speaker is a "relevant issue" for the purposes of invoking President's rule under Article 356 of the constitution.

Earlier:

Prez rule in Uttarakhand: SC asks 7 questions, seeks Modi govt’s reply

New Delhi, Apr 27 (HT): The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre seven questions about President’s rule in Uttarakhand as it heard a petition challenging a high court order restoring the Congress government in the state.

An apex court bench headed by justice Dipak Misra had on Friday stayed the Uttarakhand high court’s verdict reinstating the Harish Rawat government in the state till Wednesday.

Here are the seven questions asked by the apex court:

1. “Whether governor could have sent message in present manner under Article 175 (2) to conduct floor test?”

2. “Whether governor can ask assembly speaker for division of votes as both are Constitutional authorities?”

3. “Can a delay in the floor test be ground for proclamation of President’s rule in state?”

4. “What is the stage of appropriation bill and when President’s rule comes in the picture with regards to Appropriation bill?”

5. “Can the proceeding in the Uttarakhand Assembly be taken note by the President for imposing President’s rule?”

6. “Whether disqualification of MLAs by the Speaker is a relevant issue for the purpose of imposing President’s rule under Article 356?”

7. “Convention is money bill failed, government goes but who is to say money bill hasn’t been passed if Speaker doesn’t say so?”

The stay order that revived President’s rule in Uttarakhand, came after attorney general Mukul Rohatgi gave an undertaking that the Centre will not revoke President’s rule until April 27.

An Uttarakhand high court division bench, headed by Justice KM Joseph, had revived the assembly and reinstated the Rawat government on April 21.

The political crisis emerged after nine of his MLAs revolted and sided with the opposition BJP during a debate over the state budget in March. This prompted governor KK Paul to ask Rawat to prove his majority in the assembly.

But a day before the trust vote, the Centre imposed President’s rule on March 27, citing a breakdown in constitutional machinery in the state.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi alleged there was a constitutional breakdown because Rawat indulged in corruption.

On behalf of Rawat, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi denied the allegations.