HVK Archives: Something rotten
Something rotten - The Times of India
Editorial
()
14 August 1997
Title: Something rotten
Author: Editorial
Publication: The Times of India
Date: August 14, 1997
The Patna high court's view that the situation in Bihar warranted the
imposition of President's Rule is without precedent in Indian
constitutional history. Coming at a crucial point in the ongoing judiciary
versus executive debate, the pronouncements are bound once again to raise
demands for a redefinition of judicial jurisdiction in matters considered
the domain of the executive. Indeed, the court's intervention raises
several constitutional points, starting with the fact that two judges of a
high court, rather than a full constitutional bench, have chosen to
interpret Article 356 in a way that has not been done before. High courts
elsewhere could use it as precedent to seek the removal of other state
governments, resulting in consequences for which we are clearly not
prepared. No doubt, the court's opinion is only in the nature of a
recommendation and it is up to the President finally to satisfy himself on
the merits of the case. However, it could, at least theoretically, lead to
a situation where the executive is increasingly undermined, not to mention
the fact that it involves invoking an Article whose frequent use has been
cautioned against by a variety of sources - from Bhim Rao Ambedkar who
advocated its retention as a ,dead letter' to the apex Court which wanted
it applied sparingly, only in cases where there was definite and provable
evidence of breakdown of the constitutional machinery. The constituents of
the United Front are equally sworn to prevent its misuse. Whether, in these
circumstances, today's Bihar would be a fit case for the application of
this Article is for constitutional experts to decide.
There are two main aspects to be considered in this case. One, Mr Laloo
Prasad Yadav has resigned as chief minister and is in jail. Two, for all
the controversy over the manner of her appointment, Mrs Rabri Devi has
proved her strength on the floor of the legislative assembly. In short, a
difficult case to fault, on strictly legal grounds. Nevertheless, for the
high court to have gone to the extreme length of recommending the state
government's dismissal, there must be something terribly wrong somewhere.
We have here not merely a state government which continues in office by
proxy, but a coalition at the centre which is party to this obvious fraud.
Mr Yadav may have gone through the ceremony of relinquishing office, but
his wife is very much around to do his bidding, which makes nonsense of the
claim that the purpose of his removal was to prevent evidence being
tampered with. An indication of what this evidence could be is available
from a test audit ordered by the high court which revealed fraudulent
payments of up to Rs 10 crore in the ministry of rural development alone.
This, then, is what makes Bihar a political and constitutional farce today.
For the state's teeming millions, Mr Yadav was symbolic of everything that
they aspired for: he was one of them and he promised to lift them from
their misery. And yet, without so much as a by your leave the same man has
foisted on them a puppet whose only self-confessed mission is to act as her
husband's guardian. This may not be a violation of the Constitution in
letter but it certainly is in spirit. And as long as the executive shows no
responsibility towards such violations, the judiciary will perforce move in
to act as a rectifying mechanism.
Back
Top
|
