Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

Judgment revisited

The article "Supreme Court judgment revisited" (March 21) has illuminated many who all along felt that injustice had been done to the elected members of the dissolved Bihar Assembly but were not clear on how exactly it was done. The arguments and explanations offered by and on behalf of the Governor, the Prime Minister, and the ruling establishment befuddled many who believed that these players were, after all, functioning within the Constitution though in an unjust manner. The article has made it amply clear that what happened was not only injustice but also patent unconstitutionality. The author, besides identifying the players in the President's Rule game, has also demarcated and apportioned hierarchical and cumulative responsibility. Hats off to his remark that even the Supreme Court allowed the beneficiaries of an unconstitutional act to get away.

D. Raja Ganesan,
Chennai

That the article has questioned the propriety of the Union Cabinet recommending President's Rule in Bihar is welcome. It is common knowledge that the Cabinet's decision was an outcome of the RJD's arm-twisting. The Prime Minister gave in to coalition pressure when he should have asserted his authority. The haste with which the Presidential assent was accorded is equally unfortunate. Let such precedents not misguide the generations to come.

R.P. Mehrotra,
New Delhi

The article has done little to enhance one's understanding of the issue. That for two months after the elections no one staked claim to form a government, that a House cannot meet without there being a decision on who has a majority, and that it is the Governor who takes decisions in such circumstances have been bypassed.

M.C. Swaminathan,
Hyderabad

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

Stories in this Section

Revisiting capital account convertibility
Back to square one
Privatisation: come hell or high water
India's water and sanitation challenges
Corrections and clarifications
Two British-Indians in cash-for-peerage row
Who's stone age, U.K. politicians or bushmen?
Model Code
Unfortunate
Shocking
Judgment revisited

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu