A needless debate

V Krishna Ananth

Article 356 of the Constitution continues to be abused. In the past, the provision was abused by parties that were in power in the Centre. And it is now the turn of sundry leaders of the various political parties and those in the media. While it served partisan political purposes even while destroying the federal aspects of the Republic in the past, the abuse of Article 356 in recent times has served no serious purpose except feeding the media with spacefilling news.

The debate in the past few days over invoking Article 356 in Uttar Pradesh is devoid of any substance. All those who matter in this case, know for sure that there is no scope for 356 in this instance; or for that matter for all times to come as long as the Article is not amended drastically and such amendments are overlooked by the apex court for constitutional incompatibility. The reason being that after the Supreme Court judgment in 1994 (in the SR Bommai and Others versus Union of India case), abuse of the Article is no longer possible. In fact the various checks imposed on the Centre, thanks to the judgment, makes it impossible even to use the Article where it is justified.

Gujarat, after the bloody pogrom in 2002, was a case where the State Government could have been dismissed and the Assembly dissolved. The fact that the Narendra Modi Government did not ensure the Right to Life of the citizens of India, was a clear case of the breakdown of the Constitutional scheme of things. And Article 356 is a provision that makes it imperative for the Union Government to intervene in such event. But then, the fact that Narendra Modi belonged to the same party as Atal Behari Vajpayee, ensured that this Constitutional provision was not invoked.

Similarly, when at least two dozen citizens of this country were massacred in Narayanpur in early 1999, the Rabri Devi Government in Bihar ought to have been dismissed. Incidentally, the Vajpayee-led Union Government then invoked Article 356. But it did not pass in the Rajya Sabha because the Congress found it prudent to please Rabri’s husband, Lalu Yadav.

The judgment on the Bommai case covered a lot of issues such as the appropriate forum for testing the strength of a ruling party/combine being the floor of the legislature, and not the pleasant environs of the Raj Bhavan, but the substantial aspect of the judgment was that the basis of the decision to impose central rule was rendered open to judicial scrutiny.

This is relevant in case of Uttar Pradesh and the report from Governor TV Rajeswar, who, it may be recalled, has been a loyal soldier of India’s grand old party and hence was rewarded the luxury of a term in Lucknow’s Raj Bhavan.

In other words, in the event of the Union Cabinet asking the President, Abdul Kalam to issue the proclamation, the President has the right to seek a clarification. And if the Cabinet decides to send him the same recommendation, without any change, there is no way the President can refuse to proclaim dismissal of the Mulayam Singh Government and put the State under central rule.

The ball does not stop there and that is the importance of the Bommai judgment. The apex court can take up the case suo motu or admit a petition against the President’s proclamation and call for the documents, including the report from Rajeswar for judicial scrutiny. And now that it is clear that Rajeswar has sought dismissal of the Mulayam Government on grounds that he apprehends horse trading, the apex court can recall its own words in the case against Buta Singh in Bihar, of March 2005 when the State Assembly was ordered to be dissolved at a stage when Nitish Kumar had managed a majority in the Assembly.

The court had then observed that it was Buta Singh’s concern and that mere apprehension of horse trading was not the same as break-down of Constitutional scheme of Governance.

All this means the following: The Congress party, whose leaders including lawyers are holding forth in the media of the state of things in Uttar Pradesh seem to be guided by the simple calculation that even if the State is brought under central rule until the court orders reinstatement of Mulayam Singh, it is good enough. They can ‘rule’ the State for a while because they know that wresting power in UP, despite Rahul Gandhi’s arrival, is not going to happen.

They did the same in 1996 thanks to Romesh Bhandari, who was the Governor. This is not to say that Mulayam has the moral authority to continue. He did not have any even earlier.

The writer is a advocate and commentator on political affairs