According to you the Governor can only summon the house and then leave it to the house? Justice Chandrachud asks Singhvi
Singhvi : “Yes!”
Singhvi now reading excerpts from Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh to substantiate his argument.
There is a very neat constitutional balance between the governor having the powers to call the assembly when it is prorogued vs. the power of assembly when it is in session itself : Singhvi .
Justice Chandrachud: “Another question is, whether a court will interfere in such a case or will the Governor have to draw its own remedies in consonance with the Constitution?”
Justice Chandrachud puts a question to Singhvi : “Is your argument that a floor test can only be conducted in a running assembly if a no confidence motion has been passed?”
Singhvi: Yes, I am so obliged. The other way is, if a money bill stands failed.
Singhvi now refers to a judgement to state that the “Court cannot aid breach of assembly rules”
The bench observes that it is impossible to infer any kind of coercion from these documents.
“It is apparent that they are acting in concert”, states the Bench
Singhvi replies : “Cacophony of dissent” is apparent.
Singhvi, reads out Vakalatnamas of rebel MLA’s. He adds that from this, it is apparent that coercion was prevalent.
Further, Singhvi adds that Video Conferencing perpetuates and upholds coercion.
Singhvi says that Rohatgi must be wary of “over-simplifying” the issue
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for petitioners) rises to interject. Says the Resignation is not the question. The question is whether governors order should be implemented or should be trashed, thats all