Home » News » Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Seeking President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh

The top court has on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that sought to impose President’s rule in the State of Uttar Pradesh under Article 356 of the Constitution and dissolving the Yogi Adityanath government.

The bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde heard the petition filed by one advocate CR Jaya Sukin who alleged breakdown of law and order, discrimination against minorities, and rising crimes against Dalits in UP, as grounds for imposition of President’s rule.

“Lot of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary killings taking place in UP. But to date, Union Govt has not given any advice,” submitted the petitioner.

Further, while referring to various incidents that happened in the State, including Hathras Gang Rape Case, Illegal detention of Dr. Kafeel Khan, Police excesses and human rights violations during AMU violence, Erection of Name and shame banners against anti-CAA protestors; Sukin stated that “a situation has arisen in which the government of the State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

“Article 356 of the Constitution refers to the failure of constitutional machinery in a State in which case, the President of India, on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, may impose President rule thereof,” added the petitioner.

“The imposition of Article 356 in Uttar Pradesh is necessary to save Indian democracy and the lives of 20 crore people,” the petitioner claimed.

Nonetheless, after hearing the above contentions made by the petitioner, the top court queried the basis for making such claims while asserting “How many states have you studied crime records. Show us what basis. There is no research about what you are saying. How is your fundamental right getting affected?”

Meanwhile, when the petitioner replied that “of a total number of crimes in India, more than 30% are in UP,” however, the top court rebuked stating “We will impose heavy costs on you if you argue further.”

We welcome your comments & feedback

Related News

error: Content is protected !!