The Hindu : National : Governor was anxious not to allow distortion: Centre

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 23, 2005

National

National

Governor was anxious not to allow distortion: Centre

J. Venkatesan

"Recommending dissolution was the preferred course" "The objective of the Governor was to install an honest government in Bihar rather than a government formed through corrupt means."

NEW DELHI: The Centre on Thursday justified in the Supreme Court Bihar Governor Buta Singh's decision to recommend dissolution of the Assembly without giving Janata Dal(U) leader Nitish Kumar an opportunity to stake his claim to form government.

Had the Governor asked the parties to form a government by foul means he would have legitimised corruption, said Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati.

A Constitution Bench, which is hearing petitions challenging the dissolution of the House, said: "It is writ large that utter haste was shown to dissolve the Assembly when there was a possibility of some parties getting together and presenting themselves before the Governor." When the Bench observed "it sounds implicit that it was with a view to stalling [Mr. Nitish Kumar] from staking claim by illicit means", the Solicitor-General said, "my stand is yes."

He said, "the Governor's anxiety was not to permit distortion of the political system, a distortion which has been the canker of Indian democracy. Recommending the dissolution of the Assembly rather than installing a government brought about by illegal and irregular means of corruption and bribery was the preferred course of action. And it cannot be described as mala fide."

"No mala fide action"

When the Bench asked "what is the hurry in informing the President in Moscow of the Cabinet's decision," Mr. Vahanvati said, "it is obvious that the Cabinet shared the perception of the Governor." He asserted "just because it was done urgently it could not become a mala fide action."

The Governor's objective was to install an "honest government" rather than one formed by corrupt means. To a question what was the material before the Governor for his reports, the Solicitor-General said "he relied on the media and intelligence reports and his contacts with political functionaries."

He rejected the petitioners' contention that there was an ideological realignment.

There was nothing mala fide in the Governor's reports and ultimately the people would decide. "If the people accept that there has been an ideological realignment, then their will must prevail." At this, the Bench asked Mr. Vahanvati "whether the will of the people should prevail, even if we hold against the Proclamation." He said "yes."

"No mystery"

Additional-Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam clarified that there was no mystery behind Mr. Buta Singh annexing the clipping of a newspaper dated May 22 to his May 21 report as it was sent to the Government only on May 22.

Mr. Subramaniam said the file on the Governor's report was received in the afternoon. The Cabinet met at 10.30 p.m. and passed a resolution recommending the dissolution of the House. The President's Secretariat forwarded the resolution to the President at 1.52 a.m. on May 23; the President, who was then in Moscow, faxed his approval at 3.15 a.m; the notification was sent for printing at 11.30 a.m. and released at 2.30 p.m.

"Limited inquiry"

Earlier Attorney-General Milon K. Banerjee said the inquiry by the court was limited to seeing whether the material was relevant to the action of dissolution. Even if part of it was irrelevant, the court could not interfere so long as there was some material relevant to the action taken. Further arguments will continue on September 27.

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

National