Update, 3:12 pm: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reportedly issued notice to the Centre seeking explanation on President's rule imposed in Arunachal Pradesh on Tuesday. The Central government has to respond to it by 29 January.
The top court will hear the case next on 1 February.
Notice sent to Center on pleas of Assembly Speaker and Congress
— ANI (@ANI_news) January 27, 2016
Update, 2:37 pm: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reportedly asked the advocate representing Arunachal Pradesh Governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa to immediately submit report based on which President's rule was imposed in the Northeastern state.
It has reportedly given 15 minutes to furnish the report.
The bench hearing Congress' petition challenging Union Cabinet's decision to impose President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh also questioned why the SC was not informed about the "latest development".
SC asks counsel for Arunachal Pradesh Governor to furnish immediately his report that led to imposition of President's rule in the state.
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 27, 2016
SC asks as to why it was not apprised about the latest development. — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) January 27, 2016
SC seeks report from #ArunachalPradesh Governor within 15 minutes
— ANI (@ANI_news) January 27, 2016
President Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday imposed Central rule in Arunachal Pradesh amidst opposition from the Congress. The Supreme Court will on Wednesday hear the plea challenging Union Cabinet's recommendation to impose article 356(1) of the Constitution.
Former Delhi Police Commissioner YS Dadwal and former IAS officer GS Patnaik have been appointed as advisors to Arunachal Pradesh governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa, The Indian Express reported.
"President of India has signed a proclamation under article 356(1) of the constitution, imposing President's Rule in relation to the state of Arunachal Pradesh and keeping the legislative assembly of the state in suspended animation with effect from January 26," IANS quoted a home ministry statement.
"Taking cognisance of the constitutional breakdown that has taken place in the state as reported by the governor of Arunachal Pradesh, the union cabinet in its meeting held on 24 January, had recommend to the President to issue such proclamation," it said.
The Union Cabinet had met on 24 January to discuss the political crisis in the Northeastern state. The cabinet had recommended the proposal for imposing President's Rule even as the Supreme Court has referred a bunch of petitions on the ongoing political crisis in the state to a Constitution Bench.
The Congress has termed the decision as "murder" of democracy and the Constitution of India. The Opposition on Monday challenged the cabinet's Sunday decision recommending President's rule in Arunachal Pradesh in the Supreme Court.
"The constitution and democracy have been murdered on this Republic Day. It is an effort by the government to nail federalism. The matter is sub judice and yet the speed with which the cabinet moved and the final decision has been taken is a clear indication that they have no respect for the highest court of the land," IANS quoted Congress spokesperson Tom Vadakkan as saying.
The Congress had alleged that Rajkhowa is taking commands from the Centre. In their petition, the Congress has sought reinstatement of Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Nabam Tuki-government and his Council of Ministers by "reviving and reactivating" the sixth Arunachal Pradesh legislative assembly, according to the IE.
"The exercise of power in the present case under Article 356 (emergency) of the Constitution of India is only with a view to illegally topple the duly elected government of the Congress party, headed by Nabam Tuki, by unconstitutional means... the recommendation of Governor under Article 356 of the Constitution in the present case is to promote the political interests of party in power at the Centre," stated the petition, filed by Congress leader Rajesh Tacho.
Tuki said he will fight the battle in the Supreme Court.
"We will seek justice from the Supreme Court. We will fight this battle legally. The matter was sub judice, that's why we waited for the court's order. It said not to hold an assembly session. I had a feeling they'll do this as this was their intention. But we aren't nervous, we will fight," IANS quoted Tuki as saying.