The Supreme Court docket on Friday stayed an Andhra Pradesh Excessive Court docket order aspiring to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether or not there’s a constitutional breakdown within the State equipment beneath the Jagan Mohan Reddy authorities, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.
“Has anyone seen an order like this earlier than… Because the apex court docket, we discover this disturbing. We’re staying this order… We’ll take up this case instantly after the holidays,” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sharad A. Bobde, heading a three-judge Bench, noticed.
Solicitor Basic Tushar Mehta requested why the Excessive Court docket “ought to go into whether or not there’s a constitutional breakdown within the State”.
The federal government, represented by advocate Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, mentioned it was lower than the Excessive Court docket to investigate and advocate Presiden’s rule in a State.
“It’s Article 356 that offers with failure of constitutional equipment in a State… It is a energy [to impose President’s rule] solely vests within the Govt. The ability on this regard, like sending a report both to the Hon’ble President or to the Hon’ble Governor or to file a discovering in that regard, can’t be exercised by the judiciary,” the petition filed by the federal government mentioned.
The “unprecedented” order of the Excessive Court docket, on October 1, got here whereas deciding habeas corpus petitions filed by kinfolk of individuals remanded in judicial custody or on bail.
The Excessive Court docket had suo motu summoned the State counsel to help it in deciding “whether or not in circumstances prevailing within the State of Andhra Pradesh, the court docket can file a discovering that there’s constitutional breakdown within the State or not”.
‘HC didn’t take up software’
The State mentioned an software to recall the October 1 order was not taken up by the Excessive Court docket, compelling the federal government to maneuver the apex court docket.
The federal government mentioned the Excessive Court docket’s statement violated the Fundamental Construction doctrine of the Structure.
“Underneath the constitutional framework, it’s not for the courts to determine as as to if there’s a constitutional breakdown in a State. The mentioned energy has been particularly conferred upon a distinct constitutional authority – and rightly so. It’s useless to say that the constitutional courts shouldn’t have any judicially discoverable and manageable requirements to find out if there was a constitutional breakdown,” the petition contended.