Former attorney general and presently Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s lawyer, Mukul Rohatgi, says the haste with which president’s rule was revoked and the 7.50 am swearing-in was “odd”.In an exclusive but extensive 38 minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire on the political situation in Maharashtra, Rohatgi answered a range of questions on major constitutional and legal issues arising out of this crisis as well matters to do with propriety.Questioned closely about the governor’s failure to take into account the fact that five hours before Ajit Pawar claimed the Nationalist Congress Party was supporting Fadnavis, Sharad Pawar had publicly announced it’s support for Uddhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena, Rohatgi said the governor is not required to go by what’s said on television or the papers but only by what is presented to him by the legislative party leader of the NCP. When it was pointed out to him that as a result, the governor knowingly allowed himself to be misled by Ajit Pawar, Rohatgi responded by saying the governor has no mechanism to verify for himself nor is it his job to do so. The governor went by signed letters of support given by Ajit Pawar and that was sufficient grounds for believing the NCP was supporting Devendra Fadnavis.On the issue of the haste with which president’s rule was recommended (at 2:10 am), revoked (5:47 am) and the new government sworn in (at 7:50am), Rohatgi initially said this was because (a) president’s rule is an anathema to the Constitution and (b) because the governor had been waiting since October 24 for a government to be formed and when, finally, one emerged he believed it was important to bring into existence as soon as possible.However, later Rohatgi readily accepted that the speed with which president’s rule was revoked and the 7:50 am swearing-in was “odd”.Rohatgi was also closely questioned about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to accept the governor’s advice to revoke at 2:10 am, the fact he did so without cabinet approval and that he used Rule 12 of The Transaction of Business Rules to justify this even though the guidelines clearly state it should only be used in cases of “extreme urgency and unforeseen contingency”. On all these issues, he strongly defended the PM. Rohatgi was also questioned about the president’s role in this matter. Although he strongly defended President Ram Nath Kovind, he did say that concerns about whether the president should have raised questions about the haste and timing of revocation of president’s rule, the lack of cabinet approval and the use of Rule 12 were ‘very small matters’. Rohatgi refused to accept there was any similarity between Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed’s conduct in 1975 and that of President Kovind.The former AG also clarified that the anti-defection law kicks in as soon as the Election Commission notifies the results and the belief that it only does so when an MP takes the assembly oath is wrong. Finally, Rohatgi said a majority of the NCP MLAs had the power to remove Ajit Pawar as legislature party leader and elect Jayant Patil in his place but added this would be contested when the assembly meets and ultimately the outcome was likely to depend on how the 54 NCP MLAs vote on the confidence motion. However, Rohatgi accepted that it was possible that if the 54 MLAs vote with Ajit Pawar in favour of Devendra Fadnavis, they could (under his interpretation of the anti-defection law) end up losing their own seats.There’s a lot more in this interview with Mukul Rohatgi, who was spirited and engaging and, as always, candid and outspoken.
