The Uttarakhand high court said on Wednesday that the President’s decision to suspend the state assembly is “open for judicial review” as even he can go “horribly wrong”. In a veiled warning to the Centre, the bench of Chief Justice K M Joseph and Justice V K Bist also “hoped” that the government would not “provoke” the court by revoking President’s Rule till a verdict is delivered on the petition challenging its imposition.

Referring to the Centre’s argument that the President took the decision to impose Article 356 of the Constitution in his “political wisdom”, the bench said: “There is nothing like unreviewability. We are not sitting here to judge the political wisdom of the President… People can go wrong. A President or judge may be an excellent person, however he (President) can also go horribly wrong.”

The bench was hearing arguments on ousted Chief Minister Harish Rawat’s petition challenging imposition of President’s Rule and related petitions. “There is no king or absolutism. However high you are, the law is above you… Legitimacy of relevant inference drawn from the material that is placed before President is open for judicial review,” it said.

When senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, counsel for Harish Rawat, expressed apprehension that the Centre could revoke President’s Rule before the court passes its verdict, the court said, “I hope they don’t provoke us.”

Questioning the union cabinet’s decision to recommend President’s Rule, the court noted that the Governor, in his report, had not mentioned that 35 MLAs had sought division of votes.

“He (Governor), in his first report, doesn’t record his personal satisfaction that there were 27 BJP MLAs and 9 Congress MLAs who sought division on March 18. There is absolutely no material for the cabinet to say that 35 MLAs sought division. The Governor’s report is silent on this. This is very crucial,” said the bench.

It added that the removal of the advocate general by the state cabinet was not the Governor’s concern. “Why is it the concern of the Governor… Does that warrant imposition of President’s Rule? This is irrelevant. And I must say that I’m shocked,” said the bench.

The court sought a clarification from the Centre on its earlier allegation that the Speaker had not taken action against suspended BJP legislator Bhim Lal Arya, after the BJP sought his disqualification.

Singhvi said the BJP filed the complaint against Arya on April 5, and the Speaker sought a reply from Arya on April 12. “Their arguments that he didn’t take any action is baseless. They have misled the court (in stating) that the matter was before the Speaker from March,” said Singhvi.

“Why was the complaint filed on April 5 after President’s Rule was imposed? We were thinking why the Speaker has double standards (that he disqualified the nine rebel Congress MLAs but kept the complaint against Arya pending)… This is terrible. You are making such terrible allegations (against the Speaker). Is this how Government of India functions? What do you (Centre) have to say about this? This is not to be taken lightly as that (Speaker’s conduct regarding disqualification) was also the basis of President’s satisfaction. We are taking a serious note of this,” said the bench.

The court also questioned the “secrecy” regarding the Cabinet note on imposing President’s Rule, and asked why it should not be discussed in court or given to the petitioner.

The bench is likely to reserve its verdict on Thursday after the Centre submits its clarification on Arya.