Uttarakhand President’s Rule: The 2016 Political Crisis Explained

Where the record stands today Aftermath

AiTimeline found no new proclamation under Article 356 in Uttarakhand, and no later Supreme Court judgment that settles the question the Court itself left open on 11 May 2016: whether the President’s opinion to impose the rule on 27 March 2016 was justified and whether the High Court’s reasons were within the scope of judicial review (Supreme Court order, 11 May 2016).

The politics moved on: Rawat lost the 2017 election, and the nine disqualified MLAs’ petitions were later reported closed as academic. What survives is the precedent, a CBI case over the sting video that remains an allegation, and Rawat’s own September 2026 call for the sting and the President’s Rule period to be investigated.

Rawat asks for a probe of his whole tenure, including the sting Aftermath

After the Enforcement Directorate searched the Dehradun home of his personal assistant Chandan Singh Jeena on 10 September 2026, in a case over alleged irregularities in the 2016 UKSSSC Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari examination, Rawat invited the ED, CBI and other agencies to scrutinise every decision of his three years as chief minister. He asked for the sting operation to be investigated too, and said one of those years was “messed up by President’s Rule” (The News Mill).

The ED case concerns the recruitment exam, not the 2016 constitutional crisis. AiTimeline found no new step in the sting case itself in 2026.

CBI court orders voice samples in the sting case Aftermath

A CBI court ordered voice samples from Rawat and four other people in the 2016 sting case. Rawat called the move “laughable”, asked whether it was “voice testing or voice suppression” and said the CBI had not questioned the person he called the alleged mastermind (First Review, 19 July 2023). AiTimeline found no chargesheet or trial outcome after this.

CBI registers an FIR over the 2016 sting video Aftermath

The CBI registered an FIR against Harish Rawat, former minister Harak Singh Rawat and Samachar Plus chief Umesh Kumar, after the Nainital High Court allowed an investigation on 30 September 2019. The video, dated 23 March 2016, allegedly shows Rawat negotiating to bring the nine rebels back. The CBI said the Gandhinagar forensic laboratory found no tampering (WION). Charges named were sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. AiTimeline found no chargesheet or court outcome.

Supreme Court closes the disqualified MLAs’ petitions as academic Aftermath

A report says a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and D. Y. Chandrachud held the nine MLAs’ special leave petitions had become academic because a new Assembly had come into being, so their individual grievances did not survive (The Hawk, read via search summaries; the site blocks automated access, and no court copy was found on Indian Kanoon). Misra was Chief Justice from August 2017 to October 2018. The order date is not confirmed here.

BJP wins 57 of 70 seats; Rawat loses both seats Assembly vote

Results declared on 11 March 2017 gave the BJP 57 of 70 seats and the Congress 11, with vote shares of about 46.5% and 33.5%. Harish Rawat lost both seats he contested, Haridwar Rural and Kichha. Trivendra Singh Rawat of the BJP became chief minister (Wikipedia: 2017 Uttarakhand election).

Supreme Court records 33 of 61 votes; Centre allowed to revoke Court

The bench opened the result, produced in a sealed cover, and recorded that Rawat obtained 33 votes out of 61. Nine members “could not vote as they stood disqualified as on that day and even today.” Both sides said there was no irregularity. At the Attorney General’s request the Court varied its 22 April order and gave the Union liberty to revoke the proclamation in the course of the day; Rawat could then assume office (Supreme Court order; SCC Online; The Tribune).

The Court was explicit on two points: the question whether the 27 March proclamation was justified “will remain alive”, and the nine MLAs’ disqualification was a separate petition, with the matter listed for 12 July. The Centre revoked President’s Rule that day.

Special session: a two-hour floor test Assembly vote

A special Assembly session met at 11 a.m. under the Court’s order, with President’s Rule lifted between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. so that the vote could be held. The only agenda was the confidence motion. The proceedings were observed by the Principal Secretary for Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs and the Assembly Secretary, and the result was delivered to the Court in a sealed cover (LiveLaw; Supreme Court order).

High Court upholds the disqualification; Supreme Court declines a stay Court

On the morning of 9 May Justice U. C. Dhyani of the High Court dismissed the nine rebels’ petition against their disqualification and said they could ask the Speaker to review his decision (Lawyers Law). The rebels went straight to the Supreme Court, which the same day refused interim relief and adjourned the matter to 12 July. The 6 May order had already said the disqualified members could not vote if they remained disqualified (Supreme Court order; LiveLaw). What the effect would be if the disqualification were later set aside, the Court said in its 11 May order, “would be a matter of debate.”

Supreme Court orders a floor test for 10 May Court

On 4 May the Centre told the Court it was “seriously considering” an immediate floor test; earlier the Attorney General had argued that there “cannot be a President’s Rule and a floor test at the same time.” On 6 May the Court fixed a special session for 10 May, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., with a vote of confidence as the only business, to be videographed, and the nine disqualified members not voting (LiveLaw). The 11 May order refers to orders of 6 and 9 May and says the floor test was directed on the concession of the parties.

Supreme Court keeps the stay; no floor test on 29 April Court

The Court said its stay on the High Court judgment would continue, so the floor test fixed for 29 April would not happen. It framed seven questions on the proclamation, including whether the Speaker’s disqualification of MLAs was relevant under Article 356 and whether the delay in a floor test could justify President’s Rule, and listed the next hearing for 3 May (LiveLaw, a partial excerpt).

Supreme Court puts the High Court judgment in abeyance Court

The Centre went to the Supreme Court the day after the High Court ruling. The bench directed that the High Court judgment “shall remain in abeyance till 27th April, 2016” and recorded the Attorney General’s undertaking that the Union would not revoke the Presidential proclamation until the next hearing (Supreme Court order of 11 May quoting the 22 April order).

High Court quashes the proclamation Court

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the proclamation, restored the Rawat government and ordered a floor test for 29 April. It held that a proclamation under Article 356 is open to judicial review, and rejected the Centre’s argument that the President’s decision could not be examined: “People can go wrong, be it the President or the judges.” It found an “absolute absence of material” on which the Governor could have apprehended a breakdown, and that the Centre’s reliance on the Speaker’s 27 March decision was irrelevant because the Cabinet could not have anticipated it on 26 March (LiveLaw; The Indian Express).

The disqualification of the nine rebels was a separate track, decided by a single judge on 9 May (High Court judgment, 21 April 2016).

Single judge orders a floor test; a Division Bench puts it on hold Court

On 29 March a single judge, Justice U. C. Dhyani, ordered a floor test for 31 March, allowing the nine disqualified MLAs to vote with their votes kept separately in a sealed result (High Court order). On 30 March a Division Bench of Chief Justice K. M. Joseph and Justice V. K. Bisht kept that order in abeyance, with the next hearing on 6 April, and asked the Centre why it had imposed the rule when the Governor had fixed a date for the floor test (SCC Online).

President’s Rule imposed under Article 356 Centre

The President signed a proclamation under Article 356; all functions of the state government were assumed by the President and exercised by the Governor, subject to the President’s control. Two retired officers, Ravindra Singh and Prakash Mishra, were appointed advisers to the Governor (PIB, Ministry of Home Affairs). The Union Cabinet discussed Uttarakhand in the intervening night of 26–27 March; Rawat’s petition put the meeting at 9:30 p.m. on 26 March (High Court order, 29 March; High Court judgment, 21 April). On 26 March the Governor had written to the President enclosing a pen drive with three audio conversations and one video recording received from the rebels’ side (High Court judgment). The Governor’s deadline for the confidence vote was the next day, 28 March, so the vote never took place.

Speaker disqualifies the nine rebel Congress MLAs Crisis

Speaker Govind Singh Kunjwal disqualified the nine rebels under the anti-defection law. This reduced the House to 61 members able to vote, which is the denominator in the 33-of-61 result later recorded. The proceedings had begun on 26 March; the rebels had filed writ petitions on 25 March to postpone them but got no stay. Both sides in the High Court dated the disqualification 27.03.2016 (High Court judgment, 21 April 2016). The exact hour relative to the proclamation is not recorded in the judgment: Zee News, filing just before midnight on 26 March, reported the decision as coming late that Saturday, while later reports put it hours after President’s Rule (Zee News).

The rebels’ challenge became a separate case. The High Court upheld the disqualification on 9 May, and the Supreme Court declined to stay it the same day.

A sting video is released Crisis

Rebel Congress MLAs led by former chief minister Vijay Bahuguna released a recording that they said showed Rawat offering inducements, two days before the confidence vote. The CBI later said the video was dated 23 March 2016 (WION). The material reached the Governor, who sent it to the President on 26 March (High Court judgment). Rawat’s camp disputed it. It is an allegation: AiTimeline found no court finding that it was proved.

Governor asks Rawat to prove his majority by 28 March Crisis

On 19 March Governor K. K. Paul directed Rawat to seek a vote of confidence “at the earliest but not later than 28.03.2016”, the date the Speaker had fixed for the House to reconvene, and later sent a message under Article 175(2) that the vote be held on 28 March. The same day the Speaker issued show-cause notices to the nine rebels (High Court order, 29 March 2016). The High Court later noted that the Governor’s report to the President spoke of a floor test on 28 March but did not mention that 35 members had sought a division of votes on the Appropriation Bill (LiveLaw).

Nine Congress MLAs rebel over the Appropriation Bill Crisis

On 18 March 2016 nine Congress MLAs, including former chief minister Vijay Bahuguna, sided with the BJP in demanding a division on the Appropriation Bill. Thirty-five members in all pressed for a division, and the Speaker declared the bill passed without one (Wikipedia). The Union government then argued that Rawat had lost his majority, while Rawat said he still had it.

Rawat replaces Bahuguna as chief minister Background

Harish Rawat replaced Vijay Bahuguna as chief minister in early 2014, after the June 2013 floods (Wikipedia). Bahuguna was among the nine rebels in 2016. This is context, not an episode of President’s Rule; AiTimeline did not establish the exact date of the change.

S. R. Bommai: courts can review Article 356, and majority is tested on the floor Background

A nine-judge bench held that a proclamation under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review, that relevant material is a pre-condition, and that a ministry’s majority must be tested on the floor of the House rather than judged by the Governor alone (Wikipedia: S. R. Bommai v. Union of India). Both rulings were central in Uttarakhand in 2016.

Uttarakhand becomes a state Background

Uttarakhand was created on 9 November 2000 out of Uttar Pradesh (Wikipedia: Uttarakhand). The 2016 crisis happened in a state that was barely sixteen years old.