NEW DELHI: Had a leader who cobbled together a majority with the help of defectors from another political party been allowed to stake a claim to form a government in Bihar, a serious law and order problem would have occurred.

Senior counsel P.P. Rao made this submission on Wednesday before a five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Y. K. Sabharwal, K. G. Balakrishnan, B. N. Agrawal, Ashok Bhan and Arijit Pasayat, hearing the Assembly dissolution case.

As politics was "dominated by money power and muscle power" the lure of office was irresistible to many politicians and their supporters and had the Governor invited such a majority, there would have been all-India hartals, bandhs, etc, misleading the people who might not be aware of the constitutional position, counsel said.

Preventive step in public interest

Had there been a merger of the Lok Jan Shakti Party with the Janata Dal (United) or had the LJP joined hands with the National Democratic Alliance to form a coalition or support an NDA Government, the Governor would have had no option except swearing in the leader of the combination of the parties. But if the majority was based on the strength of LJP deserters, who were ex-facie disqualified under the anti-defection law, the leader could neither be allowed to stake a claim nor invited to form the government. In such a situation, a preventive measure like the one suggested by the Governor (viz. dissolution of the House) would be in the public interest, counsel said.

Earlier, when Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam was making his submissions for the Centre, the Bench expressed its anguish at non-implementation of the Sarkaria Commission report on appointment of Governors or reports to prevent defections and to improve the quality of governance.

"Arguing on idealism"

Had these reports been implemented litigation such as the present one could have been avoided and "a great deal of court's time saved to decide other cases." The Bench told the Additional Solicitor-General that "for the last two days, you have been talking about purity in political process. Instead of arguing on idealism, this could have been achieved had the Government acted on these reports."

The Additional Solicitor-General maintained that a President or a Governor could refuse to administer the oath of office to a person included in the Council of Ministers, if in his opinion such a person was likely to incur disqualification at the hands of the Speaker.

Mr. Subramaniam said Mr. Buta Singh's action on his subjective satisfaction that the splinter groups could not provide a stable government could not be said to be a mala fide exercise of power.

Further arguments will continue on Thursday.

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