 |
| 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 1/3rd
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 1/3rd
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 1/3rd.
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’
