Return
to Story Page
To print: Select File and then Print from your
browser's menu
T. V. R. Shenoy
The Oxford English Dictionary defines `clubbable' as someone worthy of becoming the member of a club. The implicit reasoning is that the presence of even one cuckoo in the nest will spoil it for everyone else. That, perhaps, is why clubs invented the concept of a black ball -- when an applicant was being considered for membership, a single veto would suffice to deny entry.
We in India have taken this social practice and elevated it into a constitutional principle. When it comes to the application of Article 356, no less than six individuals/institutions have the right to be heard, and any one may undo President's rule in a state. The six are the governor of the state, the Union Cabinet, the President, the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha, and the Supreme Court, and it takes all six before President's rule is an accepted fact.
Up to an extent this is wise. We have seen what happens when a single authority -- the Union Cabinet, meaning the Prime Minister for all practical purposes -- has a sole say in the matter.I can't remember how many times Article 356 has been used, close to a hundred, if not more. Most of those instances were nothing more than an unjust abuse of power. So it is just as well if this monopoly has been broken.
But is it really an answer if this monopoly is sliced into six? It is all very well to speak of `federalism', but how are we living up to that with our current procedures? In the imbroglio over Bihar, for instance, anybody and everybody appeared to have had a say except the ones most concerned -- the people of Bihar. And to my mind, ignoring their opinion is, and always has been, the chief flaw implicit in Article 356.
That is an opinion that was formed at least as far back as 1965, when the governor of Kerala obliged his masters in Delhi by recommending President's rule. The assembly polls had failed to throw up a clear winner, and Governor Jain decided on his own that there could be no stable ministry under the circumstances. The Congress government in Delhi gleefully played along, themove was ratified by both Houses of Parliament, and nobody thought of asking the Supreme Court for an opinion in those days.
As it happened, the assembly elections were not held for two years, and democracy in Kerala was in limbo until 1967. (There was no excuse for not holding the local elections alongside the Lok Sabha polls). Kerala's voters gave the finest possible answer: the CPI(M)-led front won 117 seats, while the Congress managed a paltry nine seats.
Here is another instance of the Congress's creative use of Article 356. Anwara Taimur was sworn in as Chief Minister of Assam, and continued in that office without facing the Assembly even once in the next six months. The governor then announced that President's rule had been imposed and the Assembly was put in animated suspension. Later, the same Anwara Taimur was brought back!.
Have we come very far since then? Well, yes and no. It is tougher to envisage a Kerala-type situation today, since the law has been amended to state that President's rulecannot be extended for more than two periods of six months. But it is still possible to go at great lengths to avoid facing the people in a new election.
There was, for instance, the strange case of Uttar Pradesh. The state was put under President's rule in 1995. But nobody thought it necessary to hold fresh Assembly elections alongside the Lok Sabha polls of April-May 1996. No, that had to wait until the autumn of that year, and no sooner had the results come in than President's rule was imposed all over again. The excuse, as in Kerala 31 years earlier, was that no party or alliance had a clear majority.
``There will be absolute chaos in India once the firm guiding hand of the British Raj Is removed!'' Mahatma Gandhi was once warned. ``Very well'', was the uncompromising answer, ``then leave us to chaos''.
I couldn't agree more. Democracy is not the most orderly form of governance. In all probability it never shall be. But can you deny a popular government indefinitely because the people have returnedan imperfect mandate?
Secondly, if President's rule is undemocratic, it is also something less than a demonstration of federalism. I named six individuals/institutions who have the power of veto over the imposition of President's rule. Yet the individuals concerned needn't be natives of the concerned state, nor (largely so) are the institutions. By tradition, a governor is never appointed to his or her native state. The President and the Supreme Court are above all such ties. The Union Cabinet and Parliament shall always have a majority of members from outside that state.
By the way, it should be noted that ratification by the Rajya Sabha -- the proximate cause of Rabri Devi's return -- isn't part of the Constitution adopted in 1950. That derives from a Supreme Court ruling. Unfortunately, their Lordships confined themselves to settle conditions for imposition of Article 356, not for removing it.
I also rather wish their Lordships had realised the significance of Article 356, rather than confining it toa matter to be passed by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament. It isn't just any other piece of legislation, but the setting aside of an electoral verdict.
Finally, what happens if both House disagree? Today it is Bihar, tomorrow it may be some other state. In all honesty, I don't think the answer lies in dumping the issue in the Supreme Court. Why not leave it to the people most concerned, the citizens of Bihar themselves? I simply cannot understand why political parties in India shy away from facing the people.
(That is just as true of by-elections to Parliament. I remember one case when the voters of Mongoldoi in Assam went unrepresented for six straight years. In Britain, whose system we supposedly adopted, a warrant for a by-election is issued within days of a vacancy).
The Governor. The Union Cabinet. The President. The Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha. The Supreme Court. In the ultimate analysis, it does not matter even if all these worthies agree that the imposition of President's rule isjust and warranted. That is a decision that rests with the people of the state. Can we deny them their right to be governed as they choose?
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
This story was printed from Net Express located at http://www.expressindia.com. Net Express provides a portal to India, with news from The Indian Express and The Financial Express along with sites on travel and tourism, the entertainment industry, the power sector, the environment and much more.
------------------------------------------------------------