NEW DELHI: The YS Jaganmohan Reddy directed Andhra Pradesh Government scored a brownie point against the Supreme court Friday with the Supreme Court HC order with the intention of judging “whether or not there is a constitutional break in the state” and described the order as “unprecedented and worrying.”
While listening to a petition for habeas corpus and other allegations about alleged police excesses and atrocities, an HC bench from Judges Rakesh Kumar and J Uma Devi said on October 1: “On the next date, the lead attorney to appear on behalf of the state may come prepared to assist the court as to whether in the circumstances prevailing in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the court may record a finding that there is a constitutional collapse in the state or not ”
Appearing for Andhra Pradesh on its appeal against the provisional order of the HC, Attorney General Tushar Mehta said in the constitutional structure of the federal government in India, the courts could not decide whether the constitutional machinery has collapsed in a state, which is only in the domain of the government of the Union since the consequences of such determination would justify the removal of an elected government and the imposition of a central government.
A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian were quick to call HC’s order “unprecedented and disturbing”. “In my entire career as a judge and even as a lawyer, I have never seen an order like this approved by an HC or the Supreme Court,” the CJI said.
Before suspending further proceedings in the case before the HC, the bank run by the CJI said: “We found it disturbing. We maintain order. “In his order, the bank said:” Issue notice, returnable immediately after the following Christmas / New Year holidays. Until further orders, subsequent procedures will be suspended. ”
This was the second time this week that the Andhra government, which was involved in a dispute with the HC, was successful, the first was the SC college’s decision to recommend the transfer of AP HC CJ JK Maheshwari to Sikkim HC after that CM Jaganmohan Reddy wrote a letter in October requesting the CJI to restore the “neutrality” of the HC.
In its request for special permission against the HC’s October 1 provisional order, the AP government said: “The HC, in an unprecedented manner and without any grounds or allegations from either party to that effect, had approved the order”.
“According to the scheme of the Constitution, it is Article 356 that deals with the failure of the constitutional machinery in a state. Under this article, if the president, upon receiving a report from the governor of a state or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the President can impose the government of the president. This is a power conferred exclusively on the executive. Power in this sense, such as sending a report to the president or the governor or recording a ruling in this regard, cannot be exercised by the judiciary ”.
The state government further said, “Constitutional courts do not have any judicially detectable and manageable standard for determining whether there has been a constitutional break in a state. This is essentially an executive function and must necessarily be based on a detailed factual analysis. The courts simply have no means of deciding such issues. In fact, the order is a serious usurpation of the listed executive powers. under the Constitution and, therefore, violates the doctrine of the separation of powers. ”
.
