 |
||
|
||
|
||
Whatever the outcome of the BJP's motion on the alarming law and
order situation in ,Uttar Pradesh is, it may have little effect on
the life of the Deve ,Gowda government. If passed, the motion
would be an indictment of governor Romesh Bhandari, a
constitutional functionary appointed by the President with the
Union Cabinet's advice. It would not require the H.D. Deve Gowda
government to resign. However, the government would be under an
obligation to recall the governor.
On the other hand, if the motion fails, the House would still have
had the opportunity to discuss the prevailing alarming law and
order situation.
In the past, the conduct of the governor had been discussed both in
the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. But this is the first time that a
governor's conduct has come under discussion vis-a-vis Article 75
(3) of the Constitution, which states that the council of ministers
shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.
The unprecedented ruling of Speaker P.A. Sangma is the fallout of
the BJP's motion under rule 184 of the Lok Sabha Rules and
Procedures for recall of the governor. The motion stated that the
governor had disagreed with the Union home minister's assessment of
the deteriorating law and. order situation in UP.
Two more motions were moved by BJP MPs. While the first one was
based on the governor's perception, which did not tally with the
home minister's, the subsequent motions drew the Speaker's
attention to Mr Bhandari's statement that he had spoken to the
prime minister who, he claimed, was quite satisfied with the law
and order situation in the state.
The state's chief secretary had also expressed his shock and
surprise at newspaper reports emanating from the capital suggesting
that the law and order situation was deteriorating in UP, which has
been under President's rule for lack of a consensus among political
parties about forming a popular government.
The motions pointed to the difference of opinion within the Union
Cabinet, with the prime minister being satisfied with the UP
situation and the home minister unhappy. It was argued that a
situation had arisen in which the governor had acted in a manner
that impeded the Union government's executive power. Thus a
discussion was imperative to seek a clarification from the Deve
Gowda government over whether it was satisfied with the prevailing
law and order situation in UP.
In fact, the Speaker also ruled that the treasury benches had not
been speaking with one voice on the issue. "Lack of unanimity in
the treasury benches in this regard is a matter of very serious
concern which is inconsistent with the principle of collective
responsibility of the council of ministers to the House.....," Mr
Sangma said.
Therefore, a discussion on the law and order situation in UP was
certain, even if indirectly, to lead a discussion on the conduct of
the governor which, under the rules, could be allowed except on a
substantive motion.
Politics apart, if Mr Bhandari is recalled before the discussion is
taken up, would the motion become infructuous? An expert in
parliamentary procedure says: "It may be so, but the law and order
situation can still be discussed."
The present situation has arisen because of the coalition character
of the government. In one-party rule, differences in perception of
a minister and the prime minister on a sensitive issue cannot last
long since their inevitable consequence is the concerned minister's
resignation or dismissal from the Cabinet.
Be that as it may, Surjit Singh Barnala (Tamil Nadu), Ram Lal
(Andhra Pradesh), Bhanu Pratap Singh (Goa), Sheila Kaul (Himachal
Pradesh) and Moti Lal Vora (UP) are instances of governors who were
either recalled by the President or who resigned in the wake of
criticism of their conduct. However, their demitting office had
nothing to do with the state of the law and order situation in
their domain.
In that respect, the Bhandari episode can be described as
unprecedented in the legislative history of the country.
|
||
|
||
|
||