The Hindu : National : Centre's argument on post-poll alignments faulted

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jan 25, 2006

National

National

Centre's argument on post-poll alignments faulted

J. Venkatesan

Court says it may lead to a spate of dissolutions

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday faulted the Centre's argument that going to the people's court was better than accepting a government whose majority had been obtained improperly.

The majority Bench, which criticised the Centre for recommending the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, said such a stand might lead to a spate of dissolutions.

It was of the view that the "acceptance of such a proposition as a relevant consideration to invoke exceptional power under Article 356 of the Constitution may open the floodgate of dissolutions and has far-reaching alarming and dangerous consequences. It may also be a handle to reject post-election alignments and re-alignments on the ground of the same being unethical, plunging the country or the State into another election. This aspect assumes great significance in a situation of fractured verdicts and in the formation of coalition governments. If, after polls, two or more parties come together, it may be difficult to deny their claim of majority on the stated ground of such illegality."

Only to stall JD(U)

The Bench said: "The Constitution enjoins upon the Governor that after the conclusion of elections, every possible attempt is made for formation of a popular government representing the will of the people expressed through the electoral process. If the Governor acts to the contrary by creating a situation whereby a party is prevented even to stake a claim and recommends dissolution to achieve that object, the only inescapable inference to be drawn is that the exercise of jurisdiction is wholly illegal and unconstitutional."

It said: "this [Governor's action] shows that the approach was to stall JD (U) from staking claim to form the government. At that stage, such a view cannot be said to be consistent with the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution [relating to defections]" as they had no relevance at that stage.

The Bench noted that no power had been vested with the Governor to refuse formation of a government and override the majority claim because of his "subjective assessment that the majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means. Such a power would be against the democratic principles of majority rule.''

``The Governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman. If such a power is vested in the Governor and/or the President, the consequences can be horrendous."

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