He also cited Supreme Court judgments and several precedents including those of Rajasthan assembly with regard to the convening of the assembly session to assert that the Governor cannot act of his own and can only do so with the advice of the Cabinet.
“Such superficial, clearly motivated, digressive and extraneous queries establish beyond doubt that they are coming from the highest authorities of the central government and being parroted without change as His Master’s Voice from Raj Bhawan, Jaipur.
“We all know who that Master is. But, it decimates the lustre and dignity of the Governor’s constitutional position,” Singhvi said at a virtual press conference.
Governor Kalraj Mishra had on Friday sought clarifications on six points from the state government, after Congress MLAs held a five-hour dharna on the lawns of the Raj Bhawan in Jaipur pressing for convening of the assembly.
The governor asked Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot to submit again, with the clarifications, his recommendation for calling a session.
A statement from the governor included queries on the free movement of MLAs and the reason why the session needed to be called urgently.
The governor on Saturday night received a revised proposal from the state cabinet requesting that a session of the assembly be called on July 31, Raj Bhawan sources said on Sunday.
Asked if the party would challenge the Rajasthan High Court judgement, Singhvi said the fight was not in the courtroom but in the state assembly where a floor test would determine who has the numbers.
At the same time, the Congress spokesperson questioned the high court ruling, pointing out that the apex court has clearly stated in the past that judicial review is not permissible at any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker
“If somebody is begging (for the Assembly to be convened) … and still 4-5 days have passed and now it is going to be seven days if 31st is the date be here. Then, I think this is the worst kind of obstruction of democracy, which is happening under your nose,” Singhvi noted.
Taking on the prime minister, Singh asked, “Why are those, ensconced in the highest executive post of the country, who invented jibes like ‘Mauni Baba’ for others, not introspecting on their eloquent silence in not reminding constitutional authorities like the Governor of their Rajdharma? Or is their eloquence reserved only for jumlas.”
Citing a 1992 SC judgement, Singhvi quoted a five-judge judge as saying: “Having regard to the constitutional scheme in the Tenth Schedule, judicial review should not cover any stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speakers/ Chairman; and no quia timet (ie interim interventions) are permissible”.