Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

President was right

No one can fault the contention in the editorial "A case of presidential overreach" (June 1) that the President, while not being a ceremonial figure, should also refrain from intruding into the parliamentary domain. But the analogy with the British monarch is inappropriate. While the role of the hereditary monarch is merely ceremonial, that of the Indian President duly elected by the people's representatives is not. It would be quite in order if he, as non-partisan head of state, returned a bill that runs contrary to his sense of justice. He has given Parliament an opportunity to take a close second look at the Office of Profit bill. Such interventions have a balancing effect on governments, which should not be guided by the tempers of the momentary majority.

K.X.M. John,
Ernakulam, Kerala

If the President's action of returning a bill to Parliament is an overreach of his role, why have the provision in the Constitution? He has every right to raise his objection to this or any bill. He would have failed in his duty had he not reminded the lawmakers that it is not proper to enact laws to protect the interests of a privileged few.

P.A. Shakeel Mohammed,
Kochi, Kerala

President Abdul Kalam has only asked Parliament to reconsider the bill from certain angles. He knows Parliament has the last word on any bill and is aware of what is expected of him when it is said. Why criticise him for acting in a manner permitted by the Constitution?

S. Ramaswami,
Hyderabad

I was aghast on reading the editorial. What it contends is the President is expected to be no more than a rubber stamp. I totally disagree with it.

Janardhan Rao,
Bangalore

What the President has done is in keeping with the constitutional spirit. Giving en bloc exemptions to a huge list of offices of profit, that too with retrospective effect, does violence to the principle of separation of powers.

Avuthu Srihari,
Secunderabad

The sweeping comment that the President's action amounts to constitutional overreach is unwarranted. How the main opposition party handles the issue is incidental and does not, in any manner, dilute the constitutional wisdom contained in the President's communication to Parliament.

R. Raghavan,
Chennai

Just because politicians gang up to enact a bill, does it mean it should be accepted by all and that the only remedy lies in challenging it in a court of law? When legislators forget their responsibility towards the people and indulge in self-serving legislation, other constituents of the system have to overreach and stem their action. Even though the bill may be eventually passed in its present form, it is heartening that the President reflected the displeasure of many citizens by his action.

Gopi Nathan,
Chesterfield, Missouri

If, as the editorial claims, it is not the business of the head of state to judge the constitutional-philosophical merit of legislation, pray, what is? Is he expected to correct only the spelling mistakes or punctuation marks in a bill? If yes, it is better to abolish the provision of referring bills for presidential assent.

K. Balakesari,
Chennai

Equating the President of India with the British monarch is retrograde considering that the President is elected while the British monarchy is hereditary in character. As the chief executive and head of state, he is entirely within his powers to ensure that the bill, if signed to become a law, should not lead to endless litigation on what constitutes an office of profit.

Nainan P. Kurian,
Coimbatore

In a democracy the ruling dispensation, by virtue of its majority in Parliament, is prone to taking self-serving decisions, as in the case of the Office of Profit bill. The very purpose of Article 111 of the Constitution is to alert the nation and force a rethink on such bills. The President has acted rightly and within the provisions of the Constitution.

N.B. Subramanian,
Chennai

The President did overreach his role but did so to hold back the MPs who were running away from all norms of propriety and fairness. The essence of the editorial argument seems to be that the President is not acting like a king-size rubber stamp that the post has come to be associated with. The attempt to give a retrospective effect to the bill has been rightly questioned.

Srinath Sridhar,
Chennai

The President, I am sure, has echoed the concerns of a majority of his fellow citizens. Any move to send the bill back to him as it is will be ill advised. It is hoped Parliament will address the specific issues raised in the President's message.

M.S. Rajasekaran,
Chennai

Should the Government return the bill, leaving the President with no option but to sign on the dotted lines, he must muster the courage to quit. Many Presidents in the past have missed such a golden opportunity.

K.S. Venkatraman,
Chennai

Mr. Kalam's action is but a feeble attempt to check the dangerous path taken by our parliamentarians. I am sure he knows the bill will come back to him and he will be obliged to sign it. If he is really concerned over the manner in which the ruling combine works, he should step down.

C.S. Sukhavanam,
Coimbatore

The editorial may be eloquent in driving home the point that the Cabinet is all-powerful in a parliamentary system. But it is unsavoury to drag the office of President into the quagmire of politicisation of constitutional authorities.

U. Muralikrishna,
Visakhapatnam, A.P.

The President is empowered by the Constitution to counterbalance such sycophantic actions. It is the office of the President and the judiciary we look up to for corrective action to sustain democracy.

R. Ramadurai,
Bangalore

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

Stories in this Section

About time, a ban on LTTE
Joining the wrong side
Countering social discrimination
The 2008 White House race is wide open
Corrections and clarifications
Have we become a nation of moaners?
Mumbai's season of conflicts
The U.S. and the strategy for freedom
President was right
A wake-up call
Unfair decision

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