Recent Events
Congress is in power in Uttarakhand and BJP is in opposition. In recent voting for a finance bill 9 cong MLAs allegedly voted against the bill. Despite this fact Speaker informed the governor that the bill is passed. Soon after this Cong and BJP teams met the president to discuss the state of affairs. On one side speaker issued show cause notices to 9 rebel MLAs under the anti defection law and disqualified them from the house . This is viewed as a precaution from the ruling party to ensure that a they can have a majority at the instance of a trust vote.
Centre said that the finance bill was passed without a majority implying a situation of constitutional breakdown needed for implementing presidential rule in a state. A sting operation video which came out at the same time allegedly showing the CM indulged in horse trading also strengthened the case. It prompted the governor to give a report to the centre complaining about breakdown of law and order and subsequently Presidential rule was implemented in the state drawing strong allegations of trying to destabilize the state government.
The latest episode in centre state relation
The constitution has provided federal provisions for the peaceful coexistence of both the centre and state in terms of legislative, administrative, financial relations. And the stress given by the current government at the centre in the beginning provided hope in this area. But the manner in which A/356 and the powers of speaker to disqualify MLAs are used remain as major the impediment towards these goals.
We should note that the A/356 was misused more rampantly before 1994, the year of Bommai Judgment which highlighted the significance of the states in centre state power dynamics. The Court said : “the fact that under the scheme of our constitution, greater power is conferred upon the centre vis-à-vis the states do not mean that they are mere appendages to Centre. Within the spheres allotted to them, states are supreme”. Needless to say states got a new vigor after that whenever it got pitted against the centre in any political or constitutional tussle.
Power of President And Power of Speaker of legislative assembly
Although the recent events are from the top political in nature, the basic underlying opposing forces in this case seems to be powers of president favoring the centre and powers of speaker favoring the state. According to A/74, the president shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with the advices of PM and COM.
Also it’s a convention that speaker of the State legislative Assembly is from the ruling party. She is having a very distinguished position in the precedence of power and is looked upon as the true guardian of the traditions of parliamentary democracy. She is also the final interpreter inside the house regarding the provisions in
(a) Constitution
(b) Rules of procedure and conduct of business rules
(c) Parliamentary precedents
Also speaker decides on matters of disqualification of MPs under the provisions of defection of Xth schedule.
These powers of constitutional office bearers have come to the fore in the recent events in Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh.
Moderating factors acting against these powers
The constitutional machinery in India is established based on the principle of checks and balance, where by separate branches of government have limiting powers over one another so that none will have supremacy over the other.
The problems in centre state relations were diagnosed long ago. Sarkaria commission on Centre state relation has state in 1988 that only 26 out of 75 cases of presidential rule were “just”. It was pretty clear at the time that a moderating force against these can come from 3 quarters.
- President K.R.Narayanan famously in 1999 sent back the advice of Union government to put Bihar under presidential rule. The public discourse that was triggered at the time held back the centre from resending the advice. Later assertive presidents like APJ Abdul Kalam have helped mitigate such tendencies.
2) Judiciary: As mentioned above, Bommai case was a significant milestone in this case. It laid down some principles to be followed by center and states. Some of the significant ones among them are,
- a majority enjoyed by COM shall be tested on the floor of the house.
- Centre should give warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.
- If there is an improper use of A/356 then court will provide remedy.
At the same time the powers of speaker to disqualify MLAs especially in the run up to a trust vote has to be relooked. The Judiciary is yet to move in that direction. In the current context Uttarakhand HC has done a laudable move to order a floor test for the state government and reinstating the disqualified MLAs to take part in the trust vote.
3) Clear political will:
Constitutionalism should be the norm of any political machinery. B.R. Ambedkar thought of A/356 as ‘a dead letter in the constitution’, something that would be used ‘sparingly’. Strong political will is required to upkeep this interpretation and direct the engine of government accordingly. There’s no substitute for a strong political will and all other factors can only supplement it.
Comments