The Rediff Special/S Sahay
Thank You, Rashtrapatiji
By returning the advice of his council of ministers to reconsider the recommendation that President's Rule be imposed in Uttar Pradesh
and that the state assembly be dissolved, President K R Narayanan
has reassured the nation that he is no more a rubber stamp, that
he takes his constitutional oath to 'preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution and the law' seriously.
There have been Presidents and Presidents. There was, for instance,
Mr Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed who blindly signed the proclamation of
Emergency imposed by Mrs Gandhi 'in his name' and reportedly took
a sleeping tablet afterwards, inviting the jibe that had he taken
the sleeping tablet before he signed the proclamation, there would
have been no Emergency in the country.
At the other end of the spectrum was Giani Zail Singh who gave
sleepless nights to Rajiv Gandhi by letting it be known that
further cornered, he could dismiss the prime minister. Ultimately,
Rajiv Gandhi had to beg for forgiveness.
Indian parliamentary democracy is based on the Westminister
Model. Like the British monarch, the President has to act
on the advice of his Cabinet, except when it comes to the appointment
of the prime minister and the dissolution of Parliament.
The President's right to return a piece of advice to the Cabinet
for reconsideration, but once only, is now constitutionally recognised.
In returning the Gujral government's advice to impose President's
rule in UP, the President has used this very right.
However, there is an added dimension to the Indian situation.
The Constitution allows the central government to impose President's
rule in a state in the event of the constitutional machinery breaking
down in the state or to put it differently, when the government
of the state is not being carried on in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution.
Who is to decide that this has happened? The wording of Article
356 is 'if the President on receipt of report from the governor
of a state or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen...'
In the S R Bommai case, the Supreme Court ruled by a majority
that, up to a point, the President's decision was subject to public
review. The court would not go into the sufficiency of evidence
but it could certainly examine total lack of evidence or mala fide
exercise of power.
The court further held that the President could not dissolve
a state assembly until the President's proclamation had been
approved by Parliament.
The third clarification was that the judiciary was free not only
to annul the President's decision in suitable cases but also
to give required relief.
While making its recommendation to the President, the Cabinet
is stated to have relied on the governor's report that there were
doubts about the accuracy of the voting figures, especially in
the manner it was procured, that there had been violence in the
House and that there had been horse trading. Now, it is very well
known that the governor, Mr Romesh Bhandari, is a friend of the
Samajwadi Party leader, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and for this very
reason, an enemy of the BJP. He is also governed by his own interests
and depends for survival on the United Front government, which
along with the Congress is arrayed against the BJP.
If Mr Bhandari were a true constitutional functionary, he would
have paid some heed to the Bommai ruling, in which Mr Justice
K Ramaswamy stated in no uncertain terms that the office of the
governor is a vital link and channel of impartial and objective
communication of the working of the Constitution by the sate
government to the President of India. He has to ensure protection
and sustenance of the constitutional process of the working of the
Constitution in the state playing an impartial role.
'As the head of the executive he should truthfully with a high
degree of Constitutional responsibility inform the President that
a situation has arisen in which the Constitutional machinery had
failed....' I leave it to readers to judge for themselves
how truthful Mr Bhandari has been and the kind of Constitutional
responsibility he has shown.
Mr Justice Ramaswamy further observed that 'the exercise of power
under Article 356 should under no circumstances be for a political
game to the party in power in the Union Government. It should
be used sparingly and with circumspection that the government
of the state functions with responsibility and in accordance
with the provisions.'
If those words made no impression on Mr Gujral, nothing else will.
It is said that his inclinations were not to impose President's
rule, but faced with Mr Kesri's threat that support to him could
be withdrawn he meekly submitted to the position taken by the
Congress, the CPI-M and Mr Yadav.
Mr Gujral has shown that principles can be sacrified, but not the
gaddi. The home minister, Mr Indrajit Gupta, and the representatives
of the regional parties have shown greater concern for Constitutional
niceties, but to no avail.
The Gujral government knew fully well
that the Presidential proclamation in Uttar Pradesh would be of
doubtful validity. It was reportedly so advised by the attorney general
and the law ministry. Yet knowing that it would be declared unconstitutional,
if taken to the apex court, Mr Gujral decided to recommend the
dissolution of the assembly. Why? So that the BJP may not claim
majority in a House that was kept under suspended animation and
thus stake the right once again to form the government.
At the time of writing, the Union Cabinet's reaction to the President's
decision is not known. If it sends back its original recommendation
to the President, it will bring catastrophe on itself.
If it withdraws the recommendation, it shall have redeemed itself
up to a point.
In any case, Mr Gujral is in a terrible mess. Mr Kesri has gained
an upper hand as never before. I would be surprised if Mr Gujral
comes out unscathed this time.
I come from Bihar, and like Mr Kesri, I am a non-resident Bihari.
But, both, I take it, remember the Bhojpuri saying Abra ke maugi,
sab ke bhauji. (A weak man's wife is everybody's sister in-law.)
Mr Gujral has reduced himself to that position.
S Sahay is a former editor of The Statesman.
Tell us what you think of this feature
|