Had the President and the executive enjoyed a cordial relationship, Narayanan's remarks would have been seen as a suggestion by the first citizen on a crucial issue. But with tension building up between them, it's being projected as activism by the President and an attempt by him to cast aspersions against senior judges.

For some time now, the Government has been chafing against what it considers incessantinterference by the President. But Narayanan sees himself discharging his duties as the custodian of the Constitution. It's learnt that he questioned the decision to promulgate an ordinance on the Patents Bill, bypassing Parliament. Nor was he comfortable with the decision to repeal ULCRA through an ordinance. He was also less than satisfied with the Government's handling of the Bhagwat affair.

Many in the President's circle view the present controversy as the Government's way to embarrass Narayanan for the positions he has taken in recent months, including his decision to send back the Cabinet's recommendation for Central rule in Bihar.

Another spin given to his recommendation on judges' postings is that the President was interested in the appointment of specific individuals. Had that been the case, his supporters argue, he did not have to put down his views in writing. Like some of his predecessors, he could have managed that simply by talking to the Prime Minister or to the Chief Justice.

Still, thePresident's comments that eligible persons from SC/STs were available for judgeship open him to the charge that he was accusing the highest judiciary of a caste bias. There may, however, be merit in the argument that since Narayanan is a Dalit himself, he should not be seen to be pushing the Dalit case, no matter how justified it may be, for he runs the risk of being viewed as sectarian.

The latest controversy is also one more sign of an evolving presidency. It is becoming increasingly evident that Narayanan is modelling himself more on the lines of the first president, Rajendra Prasad, than on any of his successors.

Rajendra Prasad established his right to give advice just as he received it from the Cabinet, while remaining within the ambit of the Constitution. He had sent a note to the Prime Minister that the number of ministers should be restricted to curb power-seeking. He even suggested changes in his speech to the joint session of Parliament which reflects government policy. He compelled the PM toseek his advice before decisions were made.

He wrote in 1951: ``My secretariat has not only to be vigilant and keep itself informed about the activities, administrative as well as legislative, of the central government, but also about the legislative activities of the state governments...so that I may get an opportunity of influencing the Cabinet before any decision is taken...All this is necessary because once a decision has been taken by the Cabinet, the President has to accept the advice of the Ministers and act according to their decision.''

The worrying aspect of the latest controversy is not the President putting down his views on paper, which he may have a tendency for doing having been a bureaucrat for a good part of his life. It is the breakdown of relationships at the top, first between the Defence Minister and the Navy Chief and now the President and the higher echelons of government, brought on by growing levels of distrust and a weakening of restraint.