Centre to justify imposition of President’s rule in Arunachal
The Centre is expected to tell the Supreme Court that President’s rule was imposed in Arunachal in view of reports that the ruling party along with the NSCN (K) was pressuring the dissident MLAs.india Updated: Jan 29, 2016 07:37 IST
Defending the imposition of President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, the Centre is expected to tell the Supreme Court that the extreme step was taken in view of reports that the ruling party along with the “outlawed underground outfit NSCN (K) was pressuring the dissident MLAs”.
The ministry of home affairs (MHA) has to file its response to Congress’s petition challenging the imposition of the President’s Rule in the state on Friday. Ministry sources said the Centre will give five points to justify the governor’s recommendation.
The governor, sources said, was publicly insulted and humiliated. As part of its reply, the MHA is expected to cite instances of how the Raj Bhavan was under siege by the supporters of former chief minister Nabam Tuki and ex-speaker Nabam Rebia. The protests had continued for several hours as the district administration and the police did not enforce the prohibitory orders.
State governor JP Rakhowa also has submitted, in a sealed cover, the six reports he sent to the President justifying his recommendation. The governor’s counsel, Satyapal Jain, confirmed filing the reports with the Supreme Court registry. He said a detailed affidavit would be filed on Friday.
The MHA’s affidavit would also be based on the governor’s reports, which sources said complained of how the ruling party there had blocked the helipad at Itanagar to prevent landing of any helicopter.
Meanwhile, Tuki has filed a fresh petition in the Supreme Court challenging the President’s Rule in the crisis-hit state. This case would be heard by a five-judge panel headed by justice JS Khehar on February 1.
Unlike the other petitions, Tuki has specifically questioned the notification imposing the President’s Rule. During the Wednesday hearing of Congress’ petition, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi had urged the court not to entertain it since it did not challenge the notification, an argument the bench brushed aside as technical.