India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

Parliament Session : Govt, Opposition on collision course

	July 05, 2004

The first budget session of the newly constituted Parliament begins in New Delhi on July 5 with the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government all set to present its maiden budget and the Opposition led by the BJP determined to stall the proceedings on the issue of tainted Ministers in the Government. The recent dismissal of state Governors by the UPA Government is also expected to rock the proceedings.

Both the Government and the Opposition are on a collision course on these two issues. While the BJP-led NDA is not ready to give up its demand for the dropping of what it calls “tainted ministers” in the government, the Congress hit back by sacking governors installed by the previous government alleging they were from the RSS background. In this scenario, the BJP may very well carry out its threat to boycott the Rail Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav’s budget as his name figures in the BJP list of ministers facing chargesheets and do not have the right to continue till they were cleared of the corruption allegations. The focus in the coming session could thus shift from the eagerly awaited Union Budget.

The Congress appears to be working on an agenda which is aimed at cleansing the political system from the pro-Hindutva (Hindu activism) forces. Following the “desaffronisation” exercise launched by HRD Minister Arjun Singh, starting with the restoration of the autonomy of the Indian Institutes of management and the review of the school history textbooks, the removal of governors with sangh parivar (RSS family) links is considered a second major attempt to take on the BJP.



Governors’ issue : Pros and cons

On July 2, the new UPA Government sacked the Governors of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana and Goa for their alleged BJP-RSS background. The incumbents were - Uttar Pradesh Governor Vishnu Kant Shastri, Gujarat Governor Kailash Pati Mishra, Haryana Governor Babu Parmanand and Goa Governor Kidar Nath Sahni. The Centre had advised President A P J Abdul Kalam, under Article 74 of the Constitution, to sack the Governors under Article 156.

Though there is no official reason for their sack, it is understood that they were dismissed for their “overtly political role during the last Lok Sabha elections.” The Govt has been putting pressure on these Governors to resign on their own for the past few days. Patil also met Leader of Opposition and BJP senior leader L.K.Advani to discuss the issue and urging him to persuade his partymen to quit Raj Bhavan but Advani argued that they were no longer his partymen, but Governors.

The Government has not immediately named successors to the sacked Governors. Congress leaders Buta Singh, S C Jamir, Nawal Kishore Sharma, Makhan Lal Fotedar, L P Shahi and Rajeshwar Rao are in the running.

The sacked UP Governor Vishnu Kant Shastri hit back at the Centre’s decision calling it “undemocratic” and unjustified”. He has accepted the fact that he was a RSS worker and there was nothing wrong in it as it was not a banned organisation. He pointed out that if people with RSS background can be the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and even the Vice-President of the country, why cannot a RSS worker be a Governor ? Shastri asked whether the Congress would ensure that no person with a Congress background be made a Governor in the future.

The Congress charge was that the BJP had “politicised” the demand for Governors’ resignations by the UPA Government when, in fact, the continuation of those Governors had become untenable.

The Congress spokesperson, Anand Sharma, has pointed out that not only had L.K. Advani, and others met the President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, but they had made public that they had instructed the Governors not to put in their papers and directed them “not to follow the established practice of offering to resign’’ but to “defy’’ the Government. “We cannot have a situation where Governors, who are appointed by the President, take instructions from those who lost power in the recent elections.”

The BJP has said that it will fight against the dismissal of the Governors both inside and outside Parliament and would explore all the possible options-legal and constitutional. “What is the logic in replacing the so-called political appointees by other political appointees? And, moreover, under the Constitution, the Governor enjoys a fixed five-year tenure and nowhere did it say that those with political backgrounds cannot be appointed to this post, BJP leader and former Law Minister Arun Jaitley said. The BJP has objection is mainly on the fact that no reason has been given for the dismissals.

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wanted that Shivraj Patil should either deny that they had been removed because of their association with RSS or “apologise” to RSS for using it as a reason. He termed the sacking of the governors as a “big blow to democracy”. Vajpayee also objected to the manner in which the four governors were sacked which has reduced the constitutional post to that of a daily wage worker. Vajpayee said there could be differences with the views of RSS, but it was unacceptable that people associated with the Sangh could not perform a constitutional duty or hold a constitutional post.

Earlier L.K. Advani had petitioned President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam against the removal of governors before the end of their tenure on account of their past political affiliations. On June 28, Advani led a BJP delegation to Rashtrapati Bhavan to press for Kalam’s intervention.

“Governors have fixed tenures and are appointed by the president. To remove a governor before term only on account of his connections with a certain political party is wrong,” Advani said to Kalam. “Tomorrow, the central government may change again and governors would again have to go just because of their affiliations.,” said Advani.

Observers feel the NDA and especially the BJP, should not make it an issue as the dismissal of the governors with a change in power at Centre is nothing new. In 1998, the then NDA Government had asked four Governors, A.P. Mukherjee (Mizoram), Krishan Pal Singh (Gujarat), T.R. Satish Chandra (Goa) and Romesh Bhandari (Uttar Pradesh) to resign and appointed its own men as Governors. The V P Singh Government, supported by the BJP and Left parties from outside, had also removed some Congress-appointed Governors, namely the late K Brahmananda Reddy when it came to power in 1989. But in all cases, the Governors were asked to put in their papers. This is the first case when four Governor have been sacked in one go.

Legal experts are divided over the issue. One section maintains that the President’s “pleasure” in the appointment of Governors cannot be exercised arbitrarily merely because of a change of government at the Centre. They say that normally Governors have a tenure of five years, though under Article 156 (1) of the Constitution they hold office during the “pleasure” of the President. The “pleasure” doctrine under Article 156 could be exercised only if a Governor’s action or conduct was unbecoming of the high office of the Governor, corruption or violation of the Constitutional provisions.

Under Article 310 of the Constitution, persons serving the government either at the Centre or the State hold office during the “pleasure” of the President or Governor as the case may be, but they cannot be removed arbitrarily as several procedures have to be followed. It is not contemplated in the Constitution that a Governor must automatically resign if there is a change of government.

Analysts say that the framers of the Constitution provided for a fixed tenure of five years for a Governor of a State to ensure that there are checks and balances. The Governors, therefore, cannot be thrown out on whimsical or political reasons.

This section argues that the Congress could only remove these governors if it can convince the people that those appointed by the BJP-led Government were not qualified to hold office as Governors since they were all committed to the ideology of the RSS.

On the other hand, another section maintains that the President was the best judge to decide as to when and in what circumstances the term of the Governor should be replaced. The Constitution provides for impeachment of the President, but no such provision exists for the Governor, the reason being that as the Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President, the Central Government can always recall him if the circumstances so required.

The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, P.H. Parekh says, “There is no legal impediment for the removal of a Governor as he holds office during the pleasure of the President, who acts on the aid and advice of the government at the Centre. Therefore, whenever there is a change of party in power at the Centre, it will be justified in removing a Governor, particularly if the government feels that such a Governor is not an independent person or one who is committed to a philosophy of particular political party or an organisation.

There has been also speculation that the Governor of Rajasthan, Madan Lal Khurana, and his Bihar counterpart, Rama Jois, would also be removed, But for the moment, they have not been touched. The possibility of Khurana getting active in Delhi BJP politics was seen as a problem for the Congress Chief Minister Shiela Dixit.

And in Bihar, the Centre was reluctant to dismiss Jois as he is a former judge and was never associated with the Sangh Parivar or the BJP.



BJP boycott move over tainted Ministers

Meanwhile, the issue of NDA’s objection over induction of tainted ministers is reaching the flashpoint. Noisy scenes and interruptions earlier marred the four-day inaugural session of the 14th Lok Sabha, with the Opposition vehemently protesting against inclusion of some persons in the Council of Ministers who have cases pending against them.

The BJP could consider walking out of Parliament when the Railway Minister, Laloo Prasad Yadav, presents the budget. The former Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Sushma Swaraj, has said: “No effort has been made by the Government to end the stalemate over the `tainted’ Ministers issue. We have to take our stand (that those Ministers who have been chargesheeted should resign or be dropped) to its logical conclusion.”

Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has rejected the Opposition demand on the “tainted” Ministers saying that the BJP and others in the NDA were making an untenable distinction among those chargesheeted in various cases. “This is not the first time that ministers, who have been charged, have held on to their portfolios. I think the previous Government itself had several (of them). Now making a difference between chargesheeted for one person and others... I don’t think it is a very tenable distinction,” he said.

The BJP has been maintaining that the “charge-sheeted” Ministers, such as L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, were charged for “political” issues whereas Laloo Prasad Yadav and others in the United Progressive Alliance Government were chargesheeted in criminal cases.

Observers believe that the PM’s remarks are being interpreted in Congress circles as a clear signal that the UPA Government is prepared to take on the BJP should it choose to embark on a politics of confrontation. However, he did hope that “better sense” would prevail and that the Opposition would not disrupt the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament during the budget session.

The BJP leaders have expressed disappointment over the Prime Minister’s defence of the presence of “tainted” Ministers in his Cabinet. At a meeting which was attended by the Leader of Opposition, L.K. Advani, and the NDA convener, George Fernandes, the NDA’s strategy for the budget session was discussed. After the meeting BJP chief Venkaiah Naidu said the protest against the “tainted” Ministers would continue, but the “form” this protest would take would be decided at the NDA leaders’ meeting on July 5. Naidu has referred to the boycott of Defence Minister George Fernandes by the Congress and the Left parties in the 13th Lok Sabha over the Tehelka and “coffin scam” and argued that the Congress had no moral right to object to the BJP protest.

According to the Congress spokesman, Anand Sharma, the BJP is seeking to claim the moral high ground while at the same time suffering from selective amnesia. The BJP not only had Ministers who were being prosecuted in court, but they also gave the ticket to chargesheeted individuals in the Lok Sabha elections, Sharma pointed out. Sharma said the renomination of Dilip Singh Judeo to the Rajya Sabha was a “loud statement of the BJP’s high moral standards.” And, according to him, “there cannot be a more tainted political leader than Narendra Modi.” The United Progressive Alliance would try to focus on the issues of concern to the masses even if the National Democratic Alliance tried to disrupt the proceedings in Parliament.



Speaker’s efforts

Though Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee has been trying to explore the possibility of affecting rapprochement between the two sides, observers believe that it can only bring about temporary solution as the NDA does not have any other issue to raise in Parliament.