READ ALSO:

AAP shows sting video, alleges BJP trying to buy MLAs

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Tuesday braved the Supreme Court 's displeasure over the "delaying tactics" in taking a decision — either to install a popular government or dissolve the Delhi assembly — and stood firm that the court could not dictate to the President when to end central rule in Delhi and call for fresh elections.The court's initial outburst at the Centre presenting a letter from the President to the Delhi lieutenant governor permitting him to explore the possibility of formation of a popular government despite the inability of political parties — BJP, Aam Aadmi Party and Congress — to do so was supported by AAP counsel Prashant Bhushan.Bhushan said it was a ploy by the central government to rule Delhi by proxy despite the ground situation presenting a clear picture that there was no possibility of any party – BJP or AAP — forming a government given their strength, which fell short of the halfway mark of 36 MLAs. He alleged that it was only to encourage 'horse-trading', and the court should intervene to stop this possible malpractice.When a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and Justices J Chelameswar, A K Sikri, R K Agrawal and Arun Mishra expressed displeasure over the delaying tactics, additional solicitor general P S Narasimha stood firm in his argument that the Centre was following the Supreme Court's celebrated judgment in S R Bommai case, which mandated the President to explore every possible option for installing a popular government.He said the constitutional process of exploring the possibility of forming a popular government was on and no timeframe could be set by the judiciary. The Centre drew support from senior advocate K K Venugopal, who appeared for BJP and presented arguments purely based on law to counter AAP's politico-moral offerings.Venugopal said the statute provided that the President could through a proclamation keep the Delhi assembly in suspended animation for a year when no party was in a position to form a government. "That period of one year is yet to elapse. Can the SC now say that the President should, without exploring the possibility of formation of a popular government, dissolve the assembly? If one year time is available to the President, can the court intervene prior to elapse of one year," he asked.(Chief election officer Vijay Dev at conference room to meet ex-Delhi chief minister and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal at election commission office where Kejriwal lodged complain against BJP about fake voters. Photo: PTI)When the SC said it had been time and again giving time to the government to decide the issue, Venugopal said despite that, the court could not direct the President to decide here and now. BJP's other counsel, senior advocate Aman Sinha, said it was AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal who had done a flip-flop on dissolution of Delhi assembly and hence the party had no right to seek a direction for holding fresh elections.Narasimha chipped in and said, "I had taken time from the court earlier to inform the government about the views of the Supreme Court. It was not to seek time to take a decision on the issue. It is impermissible for the court to get into a field reserved exclusively for constitutional authorities like President. It is for the President to decide when to take a decision."The bench then asked Bhushan, "Can the Supreme Court exercise the judicial power to ask the President to modify the earlier proclamation? You have not challenged the proclamation imposing President's rule and keeping the assembly in suspended animation. You had agreed to that decision. Can the Supreme Court direct dissolution of assembly?"The arguments will continue on Thursday.