These stalwarts have for years pushed this idea and conceptually they see no problem in supporting the idea. But while the amendment would be a visible phenomenon its implication of nullifying the fundamental rights of the people would dawn on citizens much later. That is the hidden danger of the Presidential form of government and it may well explain the political brotherhood across significant parties in agreeing to such a proposal for the lofty legal purposes of allpoliticians -- public interest and stable government.

Under the Presidential form the fundamental rights get nullified because the President is not specifically named in Article 12 of the Constitution that defines the `state' against which the fundamental rights are available.

Article 12 declares that for the purposes of the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution, `state' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the legislature of each of the states and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. Under Article 13(2) it is provided that the `state' shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by the fundamental rights chapter and that any law made in contravention of this clause shall to the extent of the contravention be void. Hence the one man responsible for all law making under the Presidential form of government would escape all accountability.

It must be remembered that it is because ofthis definition of the state that the Supreme Court has refused to hold multinational and Indian companies liable under the fundamental right of a life of human dignity when they destroy thousands of citizens through leakage of hazardous substances.

The Union Carbide and the Shri Ram gas leak are mute testimony to this. Similarly, it is because of the same definition that the Supreme Court has held that government bodies like the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the National Council of Applied Economic Research are not subject to the fundamental rights of citizens or of their employees.

Consequently for an operation, economic or other, conceived, designed and executed directly through the President with implications for the lives of millions, the President cannot be called to account by invoking the fundamental rights provisions. The words ``unless the context otherwise requires'' in Article 12 of the Constitution defining the state are not words of expansion so as to bring in thePresident since the definition already describes the state in wide terms by using the word ``includes''.

Today a villager can approach the highest court against any ruling politician and if nothing else subject him to the pain of contempt power of the court. That of course has been galling for ruling politicians who were partly checked by high court or apex court directives in their march to privatisation of public resources and the misuse of the law and order machine for this purpose. So far not a single suggestion from the apex court including binding directives have been implemented by the political brotherhood which seems to have had the last laugh in cases like that of `hawala' and the Babri Masjid which the apex court chose to monitor almost weekly. The Masjid was demolished under the very nose of the district judge appointed by the Supreme Court to prevent this. The observer, though having a special hotline to the apex court, could not inform the Chief Justice of India then hearing the case about thedemolition even till midnight by which time the Chief Justice of India was telephonically inquiring about him from the Allahabad high court, stated about an individual who was pressurising them and had visited one of them but would not name him.

In such a context what hope is there of having a President under Presidential system, who would be in charge of the nuclear button, held accountable in the apex or any other court? This is especially so when under Article 361 of the Constitution the President is not answerable in any court for acts done in the purported exercise of his powers and duties. He is not subject to any criminal proceedings while in office and not liable to any civil proceedings while in or out of office. After its judgment in the JMM bribery case the apex court will not ask the elementary question as to whether acts like bribery or being bribed form part of the powers and duties of a holder of office under the Constitution. It is natural that Congress opposition stalwarts who support theconcept of a Presidential form of government have no answer to the question as to how it will ensure integrity of the ruler and service for the ruled. As of today a presidential system seems to be a prescription for a judicially underwritten tyranny.