New Delhi, July 30
Giving a new twist to the Bihar Assembly dissolution case, four former MLAs from the state, on whose petition the Supreme Court had issued a notice to the Union Government, today moved an application in the apex court seeking copies of Governor Buta Singh’s two controversial reports recommending the dissolution of the House. They contended that this was necessary for them to challenge the UPA Government’s action on “mala fide” grounds.
“Unless the contents of the repots are disclosed to the petitioners at this stage, it will not be possible for them to challenge the legality and the consequential action of dissolution,” said the application moved by the MLAs, led by BJP’s Rameshwar Prasad.
Since the main ground raised by them to assail the dissolution notification of May 23 was the alleged “mala fide” intention of the Governor and the Union Government not to give a chance to NDA to form a ministry in the state when a group of legislators were confabulating to achieve it, disclosure of the contents of Governor’s report of April 27 and May 21, was necessary for framing the response by the petitioners to assist the court in the just adjudication of this important matter, the application said.
While issuing notices to the Union Government and the Governor on July 25, a three-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice R C Lahoti, had given them three weeks time to them to file their replies to the writ petition of the four MLAs, who were asked to submit their responses within a week thereafter.
The petitioning legislators pointed out that the Union Government’s earlier affidavit, filed in response to June 10 direction of a vacation Bench, clearly “admitted” that there was no cogent material available and the recommendation was based on apprehension of the Governor about the alleged “horse trading”.
They said the disclosure of Governor’s reports in toto had become all the more necessary in view of the nine-judge constitution Bench order in Bomai case, in which dissolution order was struck down mainly on the ground that Governor’s report contained “irrelevant matters” that did not form the basis of subjective satisfaction of the President before giving assent to the imposition of Central rule.
Even in the Nagaland case, report of the Governor was examined by the apex court, which had come to the conclusion that the proclamation of President’s rule on the basis of such a report was invalid, the application said.
“The Governor’s reports are the basis and foundation of the action of dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, while the Centre’s notification of May 23 to this effect did not state any reason for the Presidential proclamation,” the former MLAs contended.
The court had impleaded the Governor as respondent in the case after making a specific query from petitioner’s counsel, former Attorney General Soli J. Sorabjee about the nature of allegations against him when notices were issued by it on July 25.
Sorabjee had stated that making Governor a party was needed “in as much as there is allegation of legal mala fide” against him.
