Recipe for jungle raj -- By Cleofato Almeida Coutinho

Adv. Cleofato A Coutinho

The great American comedian, singer, dancer, athlete and author Bob Hope had provided a new category of freedom ‘freedom from humbug’. The relevance of that freedom can be seen in India in the past few weeks. The central government dismissed the popularly elected governments in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. We are immediately told that Indira Gandhi used Article 356 to dismiss elected governments indiscriminately  and the Congress   turns around and tell us that it was a Janata government that dismissed nine state assemblies with the stroke of a pen in 1977.

Those who find nothing wrong with the imposition of president’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand claim that the Congress party failed to settle its internal disputes. That is also partly correct. But  the government went overboard in felling the popularly elected governments. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh the government chose the Republic day to promulgate the presidents rule to neutralize the challenge in the Supreme Court which was hearing whether Governor could issue directions to the speaker. In Uttarakhand the presidents rule came a day prior to floor test ordered by the Governor.  The party with a difference claims that it has no role in both the states. We require that ‘freedom from humbug’ proclaimed by Bob Hope.

The Arunachal Governor found cow as in the  law and order breakdown. The Uttarakhand president’s rule is based upon talk of horse trading caught in a sting operation. In both the cases there were splits in the Congress legislature parties. but the point is ‘split’ has been done away with and even if you have a 1/3^rd splinter group, can be no defiance of the party  line

The  Bommai Judgement had to a large extent attempted to bring in some sanity into the central governments misuse of Article 356. Hard cases make bad law. In 1998 the Supreme Court ordered something called composite floor test where Kalyan Singh and Jagdambika Pal sat on either side of the speaker. That was  a novel way of choosing a chief minister. At that time the BJP hailed the floor test but now, it sent the attorney general to Nainital to challenge the High court order which was actually adhering to the letter and spirit of the Bommai Judgement. If the Uttarakhand High Court had passed a unprecedented order of floor test even when the President rule was on, it was to deal with and extra ordinary situation. Whatever  the outcome of the division bench hearing which has stayed the floor test order and  the challenge of imposition of Presidential rule before the Supreme Court, it is very clear that after more than 65 years of democracy poaching as a strategy to grab power remains.

The record of the ‘party with the difference’ on the tolerance to opposition party government in states is dismal.  In February 1999 at a time when Atal Behari Vajpayee was out of the country, then Home minister L.K. Advani chaired the central cabinet to impose President rule in Bihar making a BJP veteran with RSS back ground take over the state of Bihar on the ground of what  was referred to as the jungle raj. but the President’s rule turned out to be a misadventure due to lack of numbers in Rajya sabha. The President’s rule had to be revoked. Rabri Devi was back as the chief minister. The government is also ready for such misadventure as it does not have majority in the upper house. In case the President's rule is not ratified by both the houses it shall cease to operate. Harish Rawat may have to be back as the Chief Minister unless an alternate government is placed in office before the Parliament recess like what they did in the Arunachal Pradesh.

At the heart of the controversy is the anti defection law and the authority of the speaker to adjudicate on the defection. There can be little doubt that Harish Rawat lost support of 9 but 9 is not even 1/3^rd of 36. It may be said that the Speaker acted undue haste  to disqualify the 9 rebel legislators. Similarly the Arunachal Pradesh speaker is accused of reducing the strength of the house through disqualification. But speakers have always got embroiled in the allegations of cobbling up majority for the chief minister.  

There was a time when the speakers major job under the anti defection law was to decide whether the breakaway fraction is 1/3^rd. Even the Supreme Court has not been in a position to clear the air over the issue. In Goa Shankar Bandekar and Ratnakar Chopdekar from the MGP were disqualified for revolting against Ramakant Khalap but Ravi Naik from the same group escaped disqualification on the ground that he was not given proper notice (he was in GMC!). There was no consensus even in the Supreme Court whether 12 MLAs of the 67 BSP MLAs crossed over to Kalyan Singh in UP amounted to disqualification.  

The anti defection law become a remedy worse than the disease.Since we have accepted anti defection law to be part of our constitutional scheme and despite the behaviour of the speakers in taking partisan stands no corrective measures have been taken.  BJP cannot be heard on complaint that the speakers have been acting in a partisan manner. Is it prepared to divest the speaker of that power?

It was felt that with the massive majority the party with the difference would govern the country with morality  and ethics but the desire for ‘Congress mukt Bharat’ has made it return to political skullduggery. Their predatory tendencies at poaching is showing the jungle raj instinct. The nation wants ‘freedom from humbug’