Uttarkhand Crisis: Crumbling Pillars of Democracy in India.

In fact I wanted to write on this topic for last one month, but deliberately delayed the same with hope that some where the crisis will end. But at last I decided to write on it in between.

The players in crisis or better call it drama are many.  Like Mahbharata’s Pandav each player claims it is beholding the democracy and others are at fault, without understanding its own mistake.  Further twist and turns, in unfolding drama, can force you to forget daily soap appearing on TV.  It has raised critical question of role and jurisdiction of different constitutional authorities.

Constitutionally mother of all problems is, question of passing or non passing of appropriation bill in state assembly on 18^th March. If  as center claims, because vote is not taken and 9 members of Congress voiced/ are  against the bill (which forced them to proclaim President Rule), then as per “Defection Law”, speakers ruling that they are disqualified ( number being less than 1/3 of Congress number) because they violated the whip of Party is correct. Now, if MLAs are challenging that disqualification is wrong, they will have to claim/state that they are/ were not against party/bill, then appropriation bill is rightly passed and there is no need of President Rule. Here, role of speaker and its jurisdiction inside the assembly will have to be interpreted by Supreme Court once again.

Next, comes the role of governor, it is understood that no where governor took notice of the fact that bill is passed or not and he, merely on representation from BJP delegation that govt. has lost majority, asked Chief Minister to prove majority by a floor test in assembly on 28^th March. In between he continue to send reports to center (on state situation , but now it came to notice through HC observation), but nowhere mentioned about “Constitutional Crisis” in state nor recommended President Rule in state. Can Governor intervene in the decision of Speaker? Does Center need governor recommendation for President Rule?. Does the imposing President Rule is first option or last option? Again ball is in Supreme Court.

Next in line comes, high court of the state. Here Judgment of single bench and double bench are at cross purpose. Single bench ordered floor test without revoking President Rule.  Can there be a floor test under President Rule? Who will move motion of confidence and for whom as there is no state government and CM. What about 9 rebel MLAs who were allowed to vote but why vote to be separately kept ? Are they disqualified or not? Nobody knows. As was expected, this order was stayed and over ruled. Yesterday, President Rule is revoked. HC  also said judicial review of President’s decision can also be undertaken. Whether SC will agree with this?

Before we move to Supreme Court let us take the role of center. Apart from constitutional questions, what center should do or should not do when a state is facing political crisis and whether this can be termed as constitutional crisis and so on. SC needs to observe that center is playing a new game. Game is knowing very well that decision of President Rule will not get approval of parliament ( due to not having majority in Rajya Sabha), it has started imposing President Rule to bring its own party’s government and then revoking President Rule before it is mandatory for it to get it passed in Parliament. SC should rule on the question does, only promulgated President Rule require parliament approval or promulgated and later revoked President Rule also needs to be confirmed by Parliament ?

In short this is the legal/ constitutional angel of crisis in state and we hope that on 27^th April or later SC will give ruling on these and many other issues involving role and jurisdiction of constitutional authorities. It may define new parameters/conditions for imposition of President Rule and so on.

But as a citizen I am worried about erosion of credibility of different pillars of democracy. Executive pillar is failing, legislator pillar is failing. And even though we talk of separation of power and voice against judicial activism, the (sad) fact is, legal system is burdened with solving many issues which are in reality political  ( or executive )one.

And the political issue is, at one end, BJP is not ready to wait for  wining general elections to increase number of state in which it rules and  at other end is Congress, which is facing crisis of leadership and followers ( say MLA) , do not have faith on  emerging leadership and do not see any future (of party). One situation is fueling other. Sometimes BJP wins (as in Arunachal Pradesh), some time it lose (as in Bihar and temporarily in Uttarakhand).

While congress needs to guard its own cadre, BJP needs to weigh short term gain in a state with long term and national loss. For example it may win Uttarkhand battle but may lose GST war.

Meanwhile wait for 27^th April, 2016, to understand new contours of emerging /evolving constitution law. It will be another landmark decision like Bommai case which established primacy of Floor test to determine majority of a government.