archive: Setting Wrong Precedents
Setting Wrong Precedents
Seshadri Chari
Organiser
August 8, 1999
Title: Setting Wrong Precedents
Author: Seshadri Chari
Publication: Organiser
Date: August 8, 1999
HAVING met with total failure in driving the Vajpayee Government to
the wall on the political front the exasperated Opposition is now
trying to hit the PM from behind the shield of various constitutional
bodies.
Government's telecom policy has since become the main ploy of this
tirade. First, the President chose to deliver himself of an opinion on
the Government's policy, seeking explanations (from Jagmohan) and
postponement (from Vajpayee). And now the Election Commission has
chosen to march into the middle of the implementation of this policy.
All this is being interpreted not so much as a gathering political
storm but a constitutional confrontation with the Vajpayee Government.
The main point on which objections from various quarters are being
raised is the Vajpayee ministry's caretaker status. Were this
objection by the Opposition, the President and the Election Commission
to be regarded as valid this country will be virtually without
anything like a government for 51 days. Will a country that has
recently come out of the catastrophe that was Kargil function without
a government? Again, if the Vajpayee Government is not 'competent' to
implement the telecom policy, the Government may not spend a single
penny from the amount allocated in the 1999-2000 Budget, nor implement
any other policy either.
And who is responsible for this state of affairs? Is it not the
anti-BJP groups and individuals who after wantonly pulling down a
functioning government miserably failed to cobble up an alternative
one? And what about the President who, unmindful of the consequences,
directed the Vajpayee Government to immediately seek a vote of
confidence? Besides, when the Government had collapsed he asked the
defeated Government to get its budget passed. Which of the President's
actions can be regarded as 'proper'?
Can a Government that has already lost the confidence of the House
pass the budget? And if it can get a Budget passed why can it not
spend the amounts on the provisions and schemes mentioned in the
Budget? If the intention was to avoid a possible fiscal impasse why
was not the Government asked to pass a vote-on-account? Did anyone
stop His Excellency, the President of India, from exercising the
powers conferred on him by the Constitution? How can the Vajpayee
Government now be stopped if it has initiated some action? Let there
be no hesitation in accepting that wittingly or unwittingly there has
been a 'slip' somewhere. And if a 'slip' has indeed occurred the
Election Commission too cannot disown its share of the 'slip'.
In the history of Independent India has an election schedule been
announced for this length of time? What is the logic in announcing the
election schedule one month before issuing the notification? Is there
a law necessitating announcement of election schedule one month in
advance of the notification? And all this when the Government had
recommended General Elections at the earliest as soon as they lost the
vote of confidence.
Is it not a fact that the Government had asked for elections as early
as May? Actually the entire Opposition was against Elections in May
fearing the BJP would derive 'political mileage' if the polling were
held too soon after the Government's fall. The Opposition asked for
polls in September and incidentally their demand was fulfilled. The
Election Commission usually takes the Government into confidence
before announcing an election schedule. It is however said that this
time the Commission discarded the convention.
Will the Government be blamed for this interregnum? Nobody can object
to the Commission conducting free and impartial election but must it
arrogate to itself the role of a 'super-government'? Very recently the
Commission pompously 'hoped' that the Central as well as State
Governments would not exploit the Independence Day functions for
political mileage. On Independence Day the Prime Minister addresses
the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort. Now is it for the
Election Commission to decide what the Prime Minister may say on the
occasion? The relevant question is: Who is responsible for the
eventuality of the Prime Minister of a 'provisional government'
addressing the nation on August 15? Who should be blamed for this
situation? The Opposition, His Excellency the President of India or
the Election Commission? Does not the wild goose chase suggest that
constitutional bodies are being misused against the Vajpayee
Government? The President, Shri K.R. Narayanan has acquired the
distinction of being an 'activist President'.
Since the fall of the Vajpayee Government certain parties are trying
to exploit Rashtrapati Bhavan as their political tool. It is quite
understandable if the Opposition demands a special session of the
Rajya Sabha. Nor is there anything wrong in the President specifically
expecting the Government to call such a session. But what can one say
if the President's 'pleasure' happens to be broadcast by some Member
of Parliament? Recently, a Rajya Sabha, MP, Gurudas Gupta of the CPI
after his meeting with the President disclosed to newsmen that the
President was in favour of calling a special session of the Rajya
Sabha.
After this public statement the President wrote to the Government
regarding the matter. During 1987-88, something that the then
President, Giani Zail Singh had in mind reached the Opposition before
it could be conveyed to the Government. What was then the Congress
reaction? Does the party have a similar reaction now? Some recent
decisions by the President have caused a lot of confusion. The
Government had recommended to the President that the acting Governor
and acting Chief Justice may be relieved of their posts. The President
however did not oblige although he approved the appointment of Arvind
Dave as Governor of Arunachal Pradesh.
The President has stopped the Government from implementing their
revised telecom policy so that the new Government to be formed after
the elections can take decision regarding this important financial
matter. But in 1998, even while Shri K.R. Narayanan was occupying
Rashtrapati Bhavan, the 'caretaker government' of Inder Kumar Gujral
was not stopped from putting its seal on the agreement with the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) although it was vitally connected with the
country's economic prospects. Was it all right to let a caretaker
government sign an agreement with the World Trade Organisation about
which developing nations, including India, have reservations?
Time will give the verdict but for the time being the current
political impasse is likely to put a question mark against the
credibility of constitutional bodies. Such an eventuality will no
doubt be most unfortunate. May His Excellency the President of India
go 'activist', let the Election Commission perform the role of a
watchdog. Nobody objects to it so long as their action remains
objective. No one will till then point an accusing finger at them. It
is, however, difficult to imagine what will happen if this delicate
balance is disturbed. The Opposition will certainly see prospects of
political benefit in it but saner counsels would rather avoid such an
eventuality. This is the major challenge of the present crisis.
The President, Shri K.R. Narayanan seems to be creating new
precedents. But can it be considered proper if, in the name of new
precedents, the President summons bureaucrats to consult them,
ignoring the political authority? For instance, in the matter of the
Indian Airlines disinvestment case, when the President was 'not
satisfied' with the decision of the Central Cabinet, the Cabinet
Secretary may endeavour to 'satisfy' him. But if the President, who is
'not satisfied', instead of inquiring from the Prime Minister or the
Minister concerned, summons the Managing Director of the corporation
to seek clarification-what kind of a precedent would it establish?
Similarly, sometime back the President wrote to the Prime Minister
asking him to look into the 'leaking' of their correspondence to the
press. But what is one to make of the Communist party leaders
publicising Government's confidential documents concerning its telecom
policy and hinting that Raisina Hill (Rashtrapati Bhavan) is in
agreement with them?.
Back
Top
|
