Title: Constitutional
thugs out to "save" the statute
Author: Arabinda Ghose
Publication: The Organiser
Date: April 23, 2000
The farcical agitation
by the Congress Party on April 14, the birth anniversary of Babasaheb Ambedkar,
to prevent the "saffronisation" of the Constitution of India, by the BJP-led
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government can best be compared with
the demand by prisoners sentenced to long prison terms for committing heinous
crimes for safeguarding their "legitimate" rights inside the jails.
The Congress Party now
led by a lady of Italian origin wants the people of the country to believe
that they are the upholders of democracy and secularism and the NDA action
in appointing a Commission to review the working of the Constitution is
a blatant attempt to "saffronise" it. How this can be done, even if it
is intended, the Congress scrupulously avoids mentioning, because even
a high school boy or girl knows that it is impossible, given the numbers
in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha to amend Article of the Constitution
without the co-operation of at least the largest party. in the Opposition-the
Indian National Congress.
It is relevant at this
stage to recall how during the Emergency in 1975-77, the Congress Party
had butchered the Constitution in order to perpetuate the rule of one single
family in the country and making the Prime Minister of the day, immune
from any prosecution in any court for any offence. Had these amendments
remained in the Statute Book, not only could P.V. Narasimha Rao escape
prosecution in the MPs bribery case which is still on, but also by extension
of this logic, neither Laloo Prasad Yadav nor his wife, the dummy Chief
Minister of Bihar, could be hauled up by the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI).
As for Congressmen and
Congresswomen's love for democracy and commitment to Parliamentary democracy
based on the Westminster model, here is what A.R.Z. Antulay, Chief Minister
of Maharashtra (in 1981-82) had to say about the Constitution on January
19, 1977 (at that time hr, was the General Secretary of the Congress) in
London during a speech under the aupsices of the Indo-British Association:
"Ours is not a truly
Parliamentary Democracy, as our Parliament does not enjoy sovereignty....
It need not be over emphasised that the will of Parliament in India is
subject to the will of the judges, and wisdom of the judges who, not being
politicians but practising lawyers prior to their appointment, are, in
the very nature of the scheme not equipped with the requisite experience
of matters of State and running of the affairs of the Nation during normalcy
as also during the periods of national crisis".
After Indira Gandhi came
back to power on January 14, 1980, the cry for amending the Constitution
was, still shrill. Apart from Antulay, Vasant Sathe too. had pleaded for
setting up the Presidential system. This is what Antulay said on December
7, 1980 while moving the economic resolution at the AICC session in New
Delhi
".Parliamentary democracy
can never, in my humble submission, Madam, bring in the progress as we
desire. ...We have got to switch on to the system that is going, to give
you, as the people of India desire, a free hand, free for five years to
do as they wish you to do. Between the Constitution as designed and the
Constitution that is desired, to be done, there is a vast difference...
Shri Antulay had favoured
periodic review of the Constitution too. In an interview with Fatma R.
Zakaria in the Times of India, published on November 16, 1980, he had said
: "Our founding fathers were keen that a review of our present Constitution
should be made periodically, they are conscious of the limitations under
which the present Constitution was being enacted".
He had further said,
quoting veteran Mahavir Tyagi, that those who framed the Constitution "were
technically not the representatives of India- "de facto we might claim
to be, but de jure we are nor'.
Shri Antulay also told
Fatma Zakaria that "Even Shri Nehru assured the members (of the Constituent
Assembly) that no Constitution could ever be static; it had to be dynamic
and must be changed according to the requirements of the people. I am firmly
of the opinion after studying the various Constitutions of the world and
the functioning of our own Constitution in the last 30 years that it is
high time we discerded this so-called Parliamentary system and adopted
the Presidential form of Government..."
(These quotations are
from the booklet "Democracy: parliamentary or Presidential? Published by
the Government of Maharashtra in February 1981 at the time Shri Antulay
was the Chief Minister).
But the real Congress
thuggery with the Constitution took place during the Emergency when the
42nd Amendment was enacted by the Indira Gandhi Government, the proceedings
in the Lok Sabha being faithfully chronicled by Professor P. G. Mavlankar,
who was the Member elected from Ahmedabad in a by-election in October 1972.
The quotes in the following paragraphs are mostly from his book "No Sir".
Prof. Mavlankar notes
that the Indira Gandhi government was responsible for bringing in 19 amendments
to the Constitution between 1971 and 1976-from the 24th to the 42nd. The
39th Amendment in 1975 provided for a new forum for resolving disputes
relating to the election of the President, the vice-president and the Speaker
of the Lok Sabha. The 40th Amendment gave immunity to the Prime Minister
from criminal proceedings till then enjoyed by the President and the Governors
and all of them had been made immune from court proceedings during their
term of office.
The 39th-Amendment provided
for incorporation of 37 central and State laws in the Ninth Schedule so
that they became immune from court proceedings. But the most interesting
part of this amendment was the Mischievous Election Laws (Amendment) Act,
1975, which validated the election of Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha after
the Allahabad High Court had declared her election as null and void on
June 12, 1975.
One of the most draconian
piece of legislation ever passed by Parliament was the 42nd Amendment to
the Constitution during the Emergency. Its provisions were so obnoxious
that the Janata Party Government which came to power in 1977 had taken
special pains to remove (through the 44th Amendment) many of these measures.
Among them was the amendment to Article 74 which made it obligatory for
the President to accept the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers
(Was it because President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was hesitant to sign on
the dotted line declaring Emergency on June 26?).
Yet another was regarding
assistance to States by the deployment of armed forces or other forces
of the Union (Article 257A). It empowered the Centre to send any armed
force or other force of the Union for dealing with any grave situation
of law and order in any State. Such force shall act in accordance with
the direction of the Central Government and shall not be subject to the
control of the State Government said the amendment. (This has been reversed
by the 44th amendment and even in Kashmir today, the armed forces of the
Union have to obtain the permission of the State Government before undertaking
operations against the terrorists).
Article 368 of the Constitution
too was amended taking all disputes regarding amendments. to the Constitution
beyond the purview of the Courts.
With such records to
its credit, only a shameless party can speak about 'saffronisation' of
the Constitution. But then who said that Congressmen and Congresswomen
have been endowed with the quality of feeling ashamed'?
