NEW DELHI, 8 June 2005 — The Supreme Court on Monday asked Attorney General Milon K. Banerji or any other law officer to be present in court Friday to respond to a petition by four legislators challenging the dissolution of Bihar Assembly. A vacation bench of Judges P.V. Reddi and Arijit Pasayat asked the petitioners’ counsel, Mukul Rohatgi, to serve a copy of the plea to the attorney general.
The petitioners — Rameswar Prasad Chourasia (Bharatiya Janata Party), Anil Kumar (Lok Janshakti Party), Ram Pravesh Rai (Janata Dal-United) and Kishore Kumar (independent) — termed the central government’s decision to dissolve the assembly as “unconstitutional”.
They sought a direction to quash the May 23 order and to restore the legislative assembly in order to enable parties to form a popular government. Rohatgi said there had been a realignment of political forces with 22 legislators of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) planning to join another political party and a day or two prior to the assembly’s dissolution, there were reports of some group staking a claim to form the government.
He said the Bihar governor, without exploring the possibility of forming a government, submitted a report to the central government recommending dissolution of the house.
The federal Cabinet met at midnight and approved the dissolution of the assembly, and on the same night President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam signed the proclamation while he was in Russia on an official visit.
The bench then intervened and asked: “Should realignment of political parties be a license for horse-trading going by the press reports?”
The judges were of the view that there was no assertion in the petition that the governor was aware of the realignment of parties, and in spite of this, he had recommended dissolution. Rohatgi said he would file an additional affidavit.
When the bench wanted to know whether the governor could be made a party to the proceedings, Rohatgi said that after the Bommai judgment, the governor’s action was subject to judicial review.
However, he said he would have a fresh look at the judgment. The petitioners alleged Governor Buta Singh’s action was mala fide as he had recommended dissolution of the assembly when there was no material before him to do so.
The governor’s intention was to prevent the formation of a National Democratic Alliance government led by Nitish Kumar and to perpetuate executive powers, they alleged.
