The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : The President's New Year speech

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jan 07, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The President's New Year speech

By Rajeev Dhavan

The President's New Year speech to Parliament is the Government's manifesto for the incoming year — by which it must be judged.

THE NEW Year was invented as a temporal concept to make our world more manageable. The sins of the previous year were to be commuted by worthy promises and resolutions for the next. The Indian Constitution also contains a New Year concept that recognises that "at the commencement of the first session of each year," the President shall address both Houses of Parliament indicating the incoming business for the year (Article 87). A similar provision exists for Governors vis-à-vis State Legislatures (Article 176).

In 2004, the CPI (M) leader, Somnath Chatterjee, protested saying the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance Government had violated this constitutional duty when it summoned Parliament to enable its dissolution without a presidential speech to open the first session in the New Year.

On February 3, 2004, the then Speaker gave a ruling that the President's New Year address was not necessary because the session was only a continuation of the adjourned session in December 2003. On this, Ramdas Athavale filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court which was admitted on the condition that the dissolution of Parliament would not be affected. On September 13, 2004, after the new Congress-led Government was sworn in, the Supreme Court referred this important question to a Constitution Bench.

The question now is how Mr. Chatterjee — then in the Opposition and now the Speaker of the Lok Sabha — is going to view this constitutional requirement. Will he follow the `precedent' of February 3, 2003? Or, will he re-examine the matter in the same spirit as the Supreme Court to insist on a policy and programme statement by the President — especially as the Calcutta, Rajasthan and Patna High Courts have suggested that a New Year statement by the President (or Governor) is constitutionally mandatory. That Mr. Chatterjee raised this question when he was in the Opposition does not disable him from addressing the important issue as Speaker. In my view, he should put the Government on notice saying even if the February session of Parliament in 2004 was a continuation of the adjourned session of December 2003, Parliament and the people expect a New Year policy statement by the President.

This provision was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act 1951. [Article 87 (1) of the Constitution, which originally said the President would address Parliament at the commencement of "every session," was amended to say he would do so at the commencement of "the first session after each general election to the House of the People and at the commencement of the first session of each year."]

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, replying to the debate on the amendment on June 2, 1951, observed: "Dr. Deshmukh asked: why have this troublesome business (of a presidential New Year speech) at all? If it is the pleasure of the Government and the mood of the President he might to do so? I do not think that it is right to leave a thing of this kind to the moods and dispositions of the President or the Government of the day. It is right that we should not compel him to speak every time the House is summoned, but I think it is right to have a rule or convention for the President to address the House at least once a year". Nehru's statement should nudge the present Government and the Speaker to ensure that the President's New Year policy speech gets the importance it deserves.

Indian legislatures cannot meander aimlessly from one year to the next without clear policy guidelines on the business for the year. Legislative sessions in India get bruised by boycotts, walkouts and disruptions. After the 2004 Lok Sabha election, the BJP simply did not allow business to be conducted in Parliament. Mandating the President's New Year address will provide a focus for Parliament and the people. It will indicate the policy of the Government, which will then be debated.

Even if the policy of the Government in February 2003 was to pass a vote-on-account and dissolve the House, it should have been the subject of a debate. By insisting on a New Year speech by the President, the Constitution requires every Government to declare its annual policy and programme at the beginning of every year.

The year 2005 has been targeted for many policies, programmes and legislation. Many foreign policy issues have been left in the air. Many laws are on the anvil. On December 29, 2004, the Government issued the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance. It clearly developed cold feet. Between 1997 and 1999, the United States successfully invoked the WTO machinery which decided that India must pass new patents legislation by April 1999 under threat of sanctions resulting in the Patents (Second Amendment) Act 2002. The issue for 2005 is whether the Government will convert its December 2004 Patents Ordinance into a statute with or without suitable amendments. It is not too much to ask the Government to declare its policy on this clearly so that Parliament and the people can respond.

The Government's promise of a National Employment Guarantee also requires a policy statement so that people can be clear about its commitment and can follow through the issues. I learnt from an Egyptologist that around 2500 B.C., the Pharaoh Khufu of the Fourth dynasty devised three-month employment schemes following the agricultural inundation period to build his pyramid at Giza. Surely, 4500 years later, we can improve on this scheme with an unequivocal commitment. Discussion on a preliminary statement can clear many issues.

The Lok Pal Bill has surfaced again. Non-legislation on the Lok Pal has become a joke. Seven Bills from 1968 to 1998 have evaded enactment. Ministers, civil servants and legislators have played musical chair on the two important questions of who should come within the catchment of the Bill and whether it should cover only issues of corruption or also maladministration. In 1988, P. Chidambaram abruptly told the House that it would have to begin all over again. Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh felt that the Prime Minister's Office should come under the Lok Pal.

All this is not just a matter of sending everything off to a Joint Committee. What is important is the policy of the Government beyond what is summarised in the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill. If the policy commitment is not clear, vague postures and untidy party politics overwhelm the democratic process into silence. This is exactly what happened to the Women's Reservation Bill, which has been smothered with contrived indecision. The Government's proposed Right to Information Bill also needs a more responsive commitment.

The Government has also indicated a legislative agenda in many other areas. Prominent among them are amendments to the Hindu Succession Act whereby unmarried daughters will become entitled to a share in joint family properties. Fifty years ago, the Hindu Code was not fully enacted because of widespread protests, including exchanges between Prime Minister Nehru and President Rajendra Prasad. The proposed amendment is an important initiative flowing from the 174th Report of the Law Commission. The bill steers away from the more radical view that married women should also be entitled to a share in the joint family property. But married women will continue to have a share in such property on the death of a coparcener. A strong policy statement will draw the Opposition out to enable a consensus.

No doubt, all legislation include policy statements that will be discussed. But academics like Gusfield, Carson and others rightly distinguish between `symbolic' and `instrumental' attempts at legislation. There is a difference between carrying through a clear policy statement and tabling a legislation that fumbles around for acceptance. We need to know the Government's legislative programme for the year so that it can be approached with democratic depth and understanding.

What applies to legislative programmes applies with even greater force to the policies that the Government intends to pursue. Instead of Ministers fighting for recognition, the tsunami tragedy requires a clear rehabilitative and future preventive policy. India needs legislation on disaster-management.

Let the Government start the New Year with policy resolutions through the President's speech. Indian governance has generally been devoid of Green Papers (for discussion) and White Papers (policy statements). Such salutary policy practices should be introduced. Likewise, the President's New Year speech should not depend — to borrow Nehru's phrase — on the "moods and dispositions" of the government.

The Constitution mandates at least one annual policy statement every year. This is the constitutional requirement of the President's New Year speech. In 2004, Mr. Chatterjee protested that this was not done. Today, he is the Speaker. The protesters are in power.

The constitutional importance of the President's New Year speech should be enhanced. It is crucial to sustain a continuing democracy to hold a Government to its promises. The President's New Year speech to Parliament is the Government's manifesto for the incoming year — by which it must be judged.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

MORE OPEN SKIES

DEFICITS NEED NOT BE WORRYING

The President's New Year speech

Wave of compassion or new tide?