Kalyan Singh moves court against Bhandari

Sharat Pradhan in Lucknow

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Thursday will take up a writ petition moved by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh against Governor Romesh Bhandari's recommendation to dismiss his 29-day-old government.

The writ petition drew the court's attention to the fact that the governor's action violated an interim order of the Supreme Court in a special leave petition moved by the state on October 1996. In its order issued on December 19, 1996, the apex court had directed the central government to ensure there was no dissolution of the assembly. That special leave petition was moved after the high court delivered a controversial verdict over the reimposition of President's rule in Uttar Pradesh after the expiry of the statutory one-year limit order.

Moved by his counsel I B Singh, Kalyan Singh's petition was filed on Wednesday before a division bench comprising Justices Brijesh Kumar and A S Gill.

The petition seeks to draw the court's attention to the governor's role in the current problems in Uttar Pradesh. It accused the governor of "acting in the most mala fide manner, abusing his powers and placing a report based on illegal and irrelevant material placed before the President".

The petition said there was no breakdown of the constitutional machinery nor any other such situation that would warrant imposition of President's rule. It goes on to say that "there is no provision under the Constitution to appoint observers for observing the functioning of a speaker of an assembly," the petition pointed out.

Kalyan Singh urged the court to direct the central government to quash the governor's recommendations for dismissal of the elected government.

Oddly, S C Misra, counsel for the defendant, was one of the observers appointed by the governor, as pointed out by Kalyan Singh's counsel.

The bench felt "it was premature to be seeking remedy for a cause that would arise only after the issue of the presidential proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution". The matter was therefore adjourned for hearing to Thursday.