The President’s Rule will continue in Uttarakhand as of now, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday. There will be no trial of strength on the floor of the Assembly on April 29 either.Hearing the appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court judgment revoking President’s rule, the apex court, however, posed seven tough questions to Centre, which has challenged the Uttarakhand High Court verdict setting aside the imposition of President’s Rule, before dealing with the issue in detail.<!– /11440465/Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>The court sought government’s top law officer attorney general (AG) Mukul Rohatgi to address the questions which included can the sting video, defeat of Appropriation Bill and disqualification of nine MLAs be the grounds for denying floor test and imposition of President’s Rule?As the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra assembled to hear the Centre’s appeal, the court said by next week it will pronounce the verdict.”Can sting operation be a relevant factor for imposition of President’s rule in a state? …The relevance must have Constitutional connection. You may socially condemn a sting operation but can you take it as a ground for Presidential proclamation. If that is so, it creates dent to democracy both ways,” the bench told the AG.Rohatgi said President’s Rule will be operative for two months till May 27 and if it is upheld by the court, then to have a floor test will be the discretion of the government and if the President’s Rule is dismissed, it will be a case of non-existence of Central rule and in that event the direction to the governor will be to call for the floor test.Rohatgi, while giving the accounts of events that had taken place on March 18, said the majority of MLAs including 27 of BJP and 9 others had demanded from the Speaker for division on the Appropriation Bill but the request was denied.The bench then asked the Attorney General as to whether the court can examine the incidents which have happened in the house and said that as per earlier judgment, unless there is “gross irregularity”, the court cannot interfere.Rohatgi said the majority rules under the Constitution and if majority of MLAs demand division, “can the Speaker say he won’t allow the request? He can’t under the law.””Speaker is the master of the house but he is not a king. He has to be guided by procedures,” Rohatgi said.While extending its April 24 order staying the high court order, the bench on the issue of floor test said possibly the answer to the current incident would ultimately be the floor test and asked Centre to place its suggestions.”The matter has its own gravity and ultimately in such a case prima facie we have to sustain democracy and if we don’t find merit with the President’s rule then we will have to have a floor test,” the court said.Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rawat and the Assembly Speaker, argued hard against the passing of any interim order, saying “you are allowing the appeal by giving the stay”. Sibal was of the view that allowing stay of operation of the High Court verdict would be like enforcing the proclamation of the President’s Rule.