The Hindu : Front Page : Balance of power may get affected: Speakers

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Mar 21, 2005

Front Page

Front Page

Balance of power may get affected: Speakers

By Neena Vyas

BY THE STATUTE: The Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, at the Emergent Conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies at the Parliament House Annexe in New Delhi on Sunday. — Photo: Shanker Chakravarty

NEW DELHI, MARCH 20. The Emergent Conference of Presiding Officers of Legislative Bodies, held here today, in a unanimous resolution expressed concern over repeated orders by courts, which tended to "disturb the delicate balance of power" between the judiciary and the legislature.

They appeared to be a "transgression" of the "independence of the parliamentary system of our country," the conference said.

It noted that the Constitution "expressly prohibits" the jurisdiction of courts in respect of the exercise of powers vested in officers and members of legislatures for regulating the procedure or conduct of business or for maintaining order in a legislative body. It then resolved that it would be best for democratic governance if the judiciary and the legislature did "not transgress areas assigned to them by the Constitution." The presiding officers said this was "imperative" to maintain harmonious relations between these two important organs of the state.

`Unfortunate situation'

In his inaugural address, the Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, said that the judicial order, if followed, would "upset the constitutional balance and the democratic functioning of the state as a whole." (The Supreme Court on March 9 directed the pro tem Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly to conduct a composite floor test on March 11 to ascertain who enjoyed the majority.)

Describing this as an "unfortunate situation" he emphasised that he was not commenting on the political happenings in Jharkhand but was worried since the order was "unimplementable." The Supreme Court's Jharkhand order of March 9, he said, was "disturbing" and it had "distorted" the "whole constitutional scheme of governance."

Later, addressing a press conference, Mr. Chatterjee said he did not think the Jharkhand order could become a precedent for future cases as it was "only an interim order." Moreover, there were many verdicts of the Supreme Court clearly acknowledging that the courts had no role to play in matters entirely within the legislature's jurisdiction.

Mr. Chatterjee had convened the meeting of presiding officers following the March 9 interim order of the Supreme Court in the matter relating to developments in Jharkhand.

He did not wish to comment on the absence of presiding officers from States ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party and its National Democratic Alliance partners except to say that he "cannot draw any conclusions and had full faith in all presiding officers." Although the Orissa Assembly Speaker, Maheshwar Mohanty, had earlier conveyed to Mr. Chatterjee's office that he would be attending the conference, he did not turn up. Apparently, the NDA convener, George Fernandes, had spoken to him and to the Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly, Inder Singh Namdhari, suggesting they fall in line with the NDA's decision of March 14. The result was that the presiding officers of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa turned up. Also absent was representation from Tamil Nadu, Mizoram, Nagaland, Uttaranchal and Himachal Pradesh. But as many as 22 presiding officers representing 19 States and Union Territories attended.

Legislature's supremacy

Mr. Chatterjee said that "the legislature's supremacy as enshrined in the Constitution should be clearly asserted." The point he made was that even in Jharkhand, the problem was resolved after executive intervention, and not through the judicial order. In fact, the pro tem Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly was unable to carry out the interim order of the Supreme Court.

"One would like to know if the court considered that there was a violation of its order, would the Speaker or the members of the legislature be held guilty of contempt? Would the judiciary be able to deal with such a situation? ... Would the Supreme Court direct the arrest and detention of the speaker and MLAs?"

He said that at the March 10 meeting of political party leaders the "preponderant majority" had expressed the "gravest concern at the order of March 9 of the Supreme Court." As for his suggestion that the Government make a presidential reference on the separation of powers of the judiciary and the legislature, he made it clear that no disrespect was shown to the Supreme Court, and none was intended for, the plea was to refer the matter to the Supreme Court itself.

"When I found an encroachment [by the Supreme Court on the jurisdiction of the legislature] I took this up."

The organs of the state derive their powers from the Constitution and the legislature was "not asking for an iota of power more than what was given to it by the founding fathers of the Constitution."

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

Front Page

News Update

Stories in this Section

Balance of power may get affected: Speakers

`Central Ministers from Tamil Nadu have done precious little for State'

U.S. group welcomes withdrawal of invite to Modi

Pakistan frees 529 Indian fishermen

Explosion at Balochistan shrine kills 39

Quake in Japan

Kumble spells Pakistan's doom

Media reports denied

Karthikeyan finishes 11th

Modi's address

Petrol price hike likely

EPF meet postponed

Immolation bid

GDP forecast