Opinion - Editorials   

Move on to elections

The imposition of President’s Rule was as inevitable as night follows day — given the numbers in a hung Legislative Assembly elected in 2004 and the unravelling of a second coalition arrangement based on nothing but political opportunism. By heeding advice from the Governor and others to hand in his resignation without waiting to go through a confidence vote that was guaranteed to go against him, Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy spared the State further politica l uncertainty and strife. His party, the Janata Dal (Secular), had burnt its bridges — first with the Congress in 2006 and 20 months later with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Winning 58 seats in the 225-member Assembly (which includes a nominated Anglo-Indian member) in the 2004 election, it has been reduced by political defections to an effective strength of 48. Neither the single largest party, the BJP, with its 79 legislators nor the Congress, with its strength of 65, was in a position credibly to stake a claim for forming the next government. The Congress and the BJP concurred in demanding the dismissal of the Kumaraswamy government but Governor Rameshwar Thakur, playing fair by the Constitution, held his hand.

The rules of constitutional conduct applicable to such situations have been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court of India in its historic March 1994 judgment in the Bommai case. A vital rule is that, in the midst of conflicting political claims, a floor test in the Assembly (as opposed to a head count in the Raj Bhavan) is the only legitimate way of ascertaining who has the majority. In its January 2006 judgment on the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, the Supreme Court held further that the apprehension of horse-trading cannot be the basis for invoking Article 356 of the Constitution and imposing President’s Rule. Had Mr. Kumaraswamy spurned the advice not to go for a pointless floor exercise on or around October 18, the political pressures on the Governor would surely have intensified. Had the BJP made a serious attempt to form a government — as distinct from former Deputy Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa falling into temptation by interrupting his State-wide campaign against ‘betrayal’ and entering into futile last-minute confabulations to get support from JD(S) MLAs — constitutionalism would have required the Governor to exhaust that option of government-formation before the promulgation of President’s Rule and the dissolution of the Assembly. In either case, the Governor’s impartiality and commitment to constitutionalism would have been put to a serious test. Now that the fun and games are effectively over, going to the people for a fresh mandate is the only course available. The 356(1) proclamation will cease to operate unless it is approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. Meanwhile, the Assembly cannot be dissolved; it can only be kept in suspended animation. What is clear is that the Karnataka situation does not warrant anything like a six-month period of President’s Rule. The Election Commission can be sounded out on the earliest feasible dates for Assembly elections. The Central government and the Governor must play scrupulously fair by the letter and spirit of constitutional federalism. They must ensure a level playing field — and allow the people to decide as early as possible who should rule this developmentally progressive State in the next round.

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

Stories in this Section

Move on to elections
And the odds are…
Behind the Hizb ul-Mujahideen’s ceasefire
The makings of a historic trial
Limits of the label “schizophrenia”
Time we gave up growth?
Corrections and clarifications
Unjustified criticism
Karnataka politics
Court boycott

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu