The decision to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on some of the points raised by the Election Commission in regard to the poll in Gujarat is wholly unexceptionable. The presidential reference under Article 143 should help set at rest the controversy as to whether the EC as a constitutional authority can advise another constitutional authority to impose President's rule in a State. The Commission, drawing its authority from Article 324 to conduct free and fair elections, may well be within its right to pronounce that the conditions were not ripe for scheduling the poll in Guajrat at this stage. But could it have suggested, albeit obliquely, as it did the other day in its 40-page order that the Government impose central rule in the State in order to get round the stipulation under Article 174(1)? Without doubt, the founding fathers of the Republic had left it entirely to the Government to decide as to whether or not a State should be brought under central rule.
The Constitution did not at any stage envisage any role whatsoever for the EC in regard to the imposition of President's rule in a State. The constitutional conundrum thrown up by the EC decision not to hold the polls to the Gujarat Assembly before October 5, when the six-month period between the meeting of the last Assembly session and the next will come to an end, needed to be resolved.
The Vajpayee Government deemed it fit to approach the apex court under Article 143 to clarify the apparent clash between Article 174(1) and Article 324. The fact that the Gujarat Governor, Sundar Singh Bhandari, had gone on record saying that there was no need for him to recommend the imposition of central rule in the State had further complicated the already skewed scenario. In Bhandari's view, conditions in the State were normal enough for the poll to be held before October 5. Without doubt, as the Governor of Gujarat, Bhandari too was within his constitutional right to assess the situation on the ground and forward his report to the President.
The founding fathers did not visualize a situation whereby the Centre or, for that matter, another constitutional authority, say the EC would coerce a Governor to recommend the imposition of President's rule when in his view there were no valid grounds to do so. So how do you resolve this apparent contradiction in the stands of the EC and the State Governor unless you exercise your right under Article 143 and seek the SC opinion to untangle the constitutional situation over Gujarat?
But, unfortunately, secularists and other professional critics of the Sangh parivar have bought the opposition propaganda that the Vajpayee Government was needlessly dragging the President into the controversy. Worse, the charge was that the Government was forcing a confrontation against the EC, which, it was being reminded, was a constitutional body, the implied message being as if the Centre lacked the constitutional sanction. The truth is that the critics of the decision to seek the SC opinion on the issue thrown up by the EC order are unable to see the larger picture, their gaze being fixed only on the fortunes of the Sangh parivar. Having concluded that an early poll in Gujarat would favour the BJP, these worthies have taken upon themselves the task of ensuring that it is put off for as long as possible.
Consequently, the EC order as also some of the unfortunate public remarks of the Chief Election Commissioner, J. M. Lyngdoh while on a fact-finding mission in Gujarat were lapped up uncritically by the secularists and their drum-beaters in the media. Little did they realize that such blatant partisanship would only egg on a constitutional functionary like Lyngdoh to play the Fuehrer and thus inflict untold damage on the constitutional scheme of things.
Meanwhile, the EC has done well to scotch speculation about a possible postponement of the polls in Jammu and Kashmir. The so-called Kashmir Committee constituted by Ram Jethmalani had called for a postponement of the election as a sop to the Hurriyat leaders who were not keen to take part in the poll process. Given the fact that the Hurriyat leadership is under the control of the Pakistani-ISI, given that it draws its monetary, moral and political sustenance from Islamabad, the so-called Kashmir Committee was mistaken in its belief that a delay in holding the J and K polls would change the basic character of the pro-Pakistani Hurriyat outfit.
In this context, the Home Minister
L. K. Advani did well to reject the Committee's suggestion for the poll
postponement. Advani's remarks also helped clarify the confusion in certain
quarters that the so-called Kashmiri Committee had his blessings. It did
not. But, you can be certain, that would not stop Jethmalani and others
on his so-called Kashmir committee to try and resolve the Kashmir problem.
Everyone needs his fifteen minutes of fame.