Home

Crowdfunding Countercurrents

CC Archive

Submission Policy

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

#SaveVizhinjam

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Iraq

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Climate Change

US Imperialism

Palestine

Communalism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

Archives

About Us

Popularise CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name


E-mail:



Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

 

 

 

Don’t Play Games With Constitutionalism

By Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava

23 April, 2016
Countercurrents.org

Supreme court has stayed the Nainital High Court decision on the President rule in Uttarakhand. High Court had reinstated Harish Rawat government which was brought under President rule by the Union government using article 356; that the government of the state could not be carried in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

The time line is thus: functional- dismissal-reinstatement-staying. Now what a common citizen can think about this game of confusion. Democracy cannot run as long as there is no constitutionalism. People should have faith in their government and government should be limited in nature and run by the rule of law but sad point is that President’s rule was imposed without having a look on Sarkaria commission recommendations and S R Bommai case by the Union government. Common people do not have ideas about technical aspects but they have at least a stake in the functioning of the government. Why then such action? None is ready to answer because in India democracy is a word only, its incorporation at the political leadership is yet to be entrenched. Most will behave India as their fiefdom, Union government used a power which was to be used in exceptional circumstances only but narrow gains are more prominent than the real democratic values.

Sarkaria commission had recommended that “Article 356 should be used very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all available alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a break-down of constitutional machinery in the State. All attempts should be made to resolve the crisis at the State level before taking recourse to the provisions of Article 356.(and) A warning should be issued to the errant State, in specific terms, that it is not carrying on the government of the State in accordance with the Constitution. (and) Normally, the President is moved to action under Article 356 on the report of the Governor. The report of the Governor is placed before each House of Parliament. Such a report should be a “speaking document” containing a precise and clear statement of all material facts and grounds on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself as to the existence or otherwise of the situation contemplated in Article 356.(and) The Governor's report, on the basis of which a Proclamation under Article 356(1) is issued, should be given wide publicity in all the media and in full.”

These recommendations were although not kept in mind when the President rule was imposed in Uttarakhand. A common citizen may ask what is the use of such commissions when these recommendations are not to be implemented. How will constitutionalism progress in the country?

In famous S R Bommai case Supreme Court had defined certain limits as floor test could be carried on whenever the doubts about majority of ruling power existed but in case of Uttarakhand Union government took the line that ‘Harish Rawat government was unconstitutional and immoral since March 18, when the Appropriation Bill was shown as passed. A division of vote was asked but was rejected..This is the first time that a failed bill was passed without a division of vote.’ This was if treated as case of maladministration then Bommai case spelt that in ‘a situation of maladministration in a state , where a duly constituted ministry enjoys support of the assembly,’ resort to Art. 356 would not be proper.

If otherwise thought by the Union government; why there was delay in the imposition of the President’s rule, moreover why was it imposed just one day before the floor test? Why Bommai ruling was not given any importance?

Union government should not be indulged as a party in the whole affair of the state as there was ongoing game of the petty politics but Union government could not hold the morality of behaving as the neutral authority.

These developments are not good for the country because. Union government loses neutral position, citizen is confused. The SC stays the HC order , what does it mean to a common person? Two authorities two different decisions, common citizen is more confused. Hence the right way is to follow the dictums proposed by Sarkaria commission and the S R Bommai case. Indian constitutionalism needs to be nurtured. Don’t play games with it. B R Ambedkar had said that this article will remain a dead letter word but in fact it has become a soft toy in the hands of the ruling parties which confuse common persons in periodic manner.

Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava is Assistant Professor, CSJM Kanpur University (affiliated College) and Vice Chairman CSSP, honorary consultant CRIEPS (Centre for research on International Economics Politics and Society), e mail-[email protected]




 



 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated