#dnaEdit: Let assembly decide

The constitutional impasse in Bihar over Jitan Ram Manjhi’s refusal to resign as Chief Minister after Janata Dal (United) legislators elected Nitish Kumar as the legislature party leader is quite unprecedented. In the recent past, no legislature party has pulled the rug from under a sitting CM in the manner that the JD(U) has done. In a similar instance, just last week, Nagaland CM TR Zeliang won a trust vote overcoming dissidents in the Naga People’s Front who appeared to be pitching for strongman Neiphiu Rio’s return to the CM post. Rio had resigned as CM and contested the Lok Sabha elections eyeing a portfolio in Delhi which has not materialised. In Bihar, it is a case of a puppet CM turning the tables on a mentor. Manjhi’s demands, alternating between a floor test and dissolution of the legislative assembly, with the support of only a dozen-odd JD(U) MLAs, signifies his resolve to go down fighting. While Manjhi’s demand for a floor test is legitimate, the same cannot be said about his recommendation to the governor to dissolve the assembly.

When Manjhi’s resolution to dissolve the assembly was moved in the Cabinet, it had the support of only eight ministers while 20 pro-Nitish ministers opposed it and resigned. A Cabinet decision, based on the principle of collective responsibility, must have the support of a majority of the Cabinet. But this is clearly not the case here. Bihar governor Kesari Nath Tripathi was quick to accept the resignation of the 20 ministers but has not shown similar alacrity in rejecting the “Cabinet” decision to dissolve the assembly. Tripathi, whatever be his political loyalties, must remember that he is a constitutional authority. He must remember that Manjhi’s position as a CM has become questionable. Rarely does a CM cling to the post even after most of his ministers have resigned, his legislature party has ousted him, and his party has expelled him.

Obviously, Manjhi is a maverick and the proprieties or niceties of legislative decorum are not among his priorities now. Manjhi is pinning his hopes on the support of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s 87 MLAs and cross-voting in the JD(U) and Lalu Prasad Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal to reach the halfway mark in the 243-member Bihar assembly. However, the numbers do not appear to favour Manjhi at this time. Even the BJP is yet to announce its support. Nitish has claimed the backing of 130 and more MLAs, including the RJD’s 24 and the Congress’ five MLAs. The place to test these claims and counter-claims is the assembly floor, but the JD(U) appears wary of taking that route until Manjhi resigns. After failing to persuade Manjhi to resign, the JD(U) has gone on the offensive alleging that Manjhi was being propped up by the BJP to force a split in the party. But the gambit could prove counter-productive for the BJP if Nitish wins and assumes charge.

It is still early days for the governor to decide on dissolution. The 3-2 majority judgment in the 2006 Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India case is a stinging rebuke and a lesson for governors tempted to dissolve a legislative assembly without a floor test. Former Bihar governor Buta Singh was at the receiving end of this judgment for recommending dissolution and President’s Rule, citing fears of horse-trading, which were unfounded. The court ruled that “without highly cogent material”, it would be wholly “irrational” for the governor to deny a majority to form the government. A similar situation is brewing in Bihar again. The proper thing for Governor Tripathi to do is convene the assembly and allow the Speaker to conduct the trust vote. Until then, Tripathi should sit back and watch whether the JD(U) can untie the knots it has tied itself in.