President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh ? UPA’s dilemma,Indian Politics, News Analysis, India News Online

While the Congress, the leading light of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre, appears to be totally convinced that there are enough legal and political factors for dismissing the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government in Uttar Pradesh and imposing President’s Rule there, it finds the going difficult in view of opposition from the CPI(M), other Left parties and even some UPA constituents like the DMK.

The latest chain of incidents was set off by the Supreme Court judgement of Feb. 14 disqualifying 13 Uttar Pradesh MLAs who had broken away from Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party to support the Samajwadi Party-led coalition and later join Mulayam Singh’s party. Their crossing the floor had helped Mulayam to cobble together a majority in the state Assembly. But the court did not pass any specific judgement relating to 24 other BSP MLAs who had joined the 13 MLAs, now disqualified, to support the Samajwadi Party. Some legal experts, specially those aligned with the Congress, are of the view that the Supreme Court ruling effectively means that the 24 MLAs also stand disqualified. This is because their number does not add upto a third of 109, the strength of the BSP in the state Assembly on the eve of the split. Any breakaway group must have at least one-third of the numbers of the original party to not attract the anti-defection law.

The Supreme Court judgement, though a moral defeat for the Mulayam Singh Government, does not pose a danger to the coalition in terms of its majority in the Assembly, because in the meantime, the Samajwadi Party has been able to win over to its side more MLAs from the opposition parties including the BSP, the BJP and the Congress.

While the Samajwadi Party and its leaders, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh claimed that the Government still enjoys majority support in the Assembly, Governor T.V. Rajeshwar has reportedly sent a communication to the Centre stating that the Government stood reduced to a minority in the light of the Supreme Court judgement on defections. Legal luminaries of the Congress, Science and Technology Minister Kapil Sibal, party’s spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi and PCC president Salman Khurshid have been vigorously putting forth the view that the Mulayam Singh Government has lost all moral and legal reasons for continuing in office.

“It is important that all political parties should ask Mulayam Singh to step down on moral grounds,” Union Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal said after spelling out a detailed interpretation of the judgment.

Briefing mediapersons, he said the 37 legislators who formed the Loktantrik Bahujan Dal (LBD), splitting away from the Bahujan Samaj Party, stood disqualified in the wake of the Supreme Court’s “historic judgment” of February 14.

Sibal’s views were reiterated by UPCC president Salman Khurshid at a separate press conference, and again later by party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi who asked “what else is the option” before the Centre in the wake of the judgment.

Asked how the Congress came to this conclusion since the judgment itself disqualified only 13 MLAs - who originally belonged to the BSP but crossed the floor and later formed the LBD along with 24 other MLAs- Sibal said the court had accepted the plea that sought the disqualification of all 37 legislators. “Which means that all 37 stand disqualified and the Government of Mulayam Singh [being in power] from August 29, 2003 to February 14, 2007 was unconstitutional.”

Arguing that the Samajwadi Party-led Government had no legitimacy left, Sibal said there was no guarantee that Mulayam Singh would not engineer more defections if he were allowed to prove his majority on February 26.

According to sources, Sibal’s arguments reflected the detailed case made by the Governor in his report to the Centre on how and why the Chief Minister stood stripped of a constitutional mandate.

Rashtriya Janata Dal leader and Union Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav observed in Patna that the only question that remained was whether the Supreme Court verdict would be respected and honoured by the Chief Minister. He favoured President’s rule.

However, CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury said, only a floor test could determine the majority of a government. “This has been our principled position since the first dismissal of an elected government in 1959.”

Mulayam refuses to step down

Even as the Congress and other opposition parties in Uttar Pradesh have been talking about what they call the “unconstitutional nature” of the Samajwadi Government in the state, Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav has refused to step down and dared the Centre to dismiss his Government. Speaking at an election rally in Nainital in neighbouring Uttrakhand, he said he would prove his Government’s majority on the floor of the Assembly on Feb. 26. He has called a meeting of party office bearers and leaders in Lucknow on Feb. 21 to take stock of the situation and to mobilise the party cadres for the coming Assembly elections, due to be held by May.

Party general secretary Amar Singh said that the Supreme Court judgement on the BSP MLAs has not questioned the legitimacy of the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government and so nobody has the right to declare it illegal. Samajwadi Party’s Rajya Sabha MP and former Advocate General Virendra Bhatia said that the Supreme Court verdict was being wrongly interpreted by those trying to dislodge the government for the past three years.

Pointing out that only 13 MLAs were disqualified by the court, the former Advocate-General said the other 24 members (of the Loktantrik Bahujan Dal) were, as of today, members of the House. He said the Bahujan Samaj Party did not file a petition in any court seeking the disqualification of the 24 MLAs.

The Samajwadi Party says that it will approach the Supreme Court if its Government is dismissed by the Centre and President’s Rule imposed in the state. At a press conference in Lucknow, Advocate General S.M.A. Kazmi said those who were saying that the Mulayam Singh-led government was unconstitutional, were committing contempt of court.

Both sides trying to build up support

The Congress has been approaching its allies and supporters to build up the momentum in favour of imposition of President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh. Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel talked to all allies including those from the Left. Former Prime Minister V.P. Singh was roped in to talk to CPI(M) leaders and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, who are traditionally opposed to the use of Art. 356. Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Ajit Singh pleaded with CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury to stay neutral on the move to dismiss the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government. The principal opposition party, the BJP and the BSP, have already been demanding the state government’s dismissal.

On the other hand, the Samajwadi Party has urged the President not to give his assent to any Union Cabinet decision to dismiss the Uttar Pradesh Government. There are reports that DMK chief M. Karunanidhi expressed his opposition to imposition of President’s Rule during his telephonic conversation with CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat. The Nationalist Congress Party and the CPI are reported to have made it clear that while they were totally against Mulayam Singh Yadav’s misrule, they did not favour imposition of President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh.

Government wary of President’s stand

There are reports that the Government is wary of the stand President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam may take on a cabinet recommendation of President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh. After the embarrassment caused by the Supreme Court verdict in the Bihar and Jharkhand cases, the possibility of President Kalam sending back the recommendation to the Cabinet for a relook cannot be ruled out. If this happens, the Union Cabinet will have to clear the proposal and send it again to President Kalam for his approval. If the President sends back the recommendation to a major moral blow and defeat for the UPA Government.

It may be recalled that when late K.R. Narayanan was President, he had asked the Government to review its decision to impose President’s Rule in Bihar when Buta Singh was Governor of that state.

————————————Box————————

Dubious track record of all parties

The Supreme Court verdict in the BSP MLAs’ case has raised serious questions about the state of UP politics and the track record of various parties, now claiming the moral high ground.

In August 2003, after the Mayawati Government was forced to go, SP general secretary Amar Singh, while welcoming the defectors to help Yadav become Chief Minister, had reflected the prevailing standards of morality in UP politics. Drawing a line between “morality” and “politics”, he had then said : “We are not Ramakrishna Mission or a charity organisation, but a political party.”

At the same time, there was a visible sense of bonhomie among non-BSP parties that Mayawati was gone. The then leader of the Rashtriya Kranti Dal, Kalyan Singh, (now back in the BJP), once described as the architect of the Babri Masjid demolition by Yadav, was part of the new Chief Minister’s think-tank. His son became a Minister in the new Government. So was Ajit Singh of the Rashtriya Lok Dal.

Current state BJP chief Kesari Nath Tripathi was then the controversial Speaker of the Assembly, whose role has been severely censured by the Supreme Court. Tripathi had recognised the “split” in the BSP and allowed the merger of the Loktantrik Bahujan Dal, which the defectors formed before merging with the SP.

Jagdambika Pal, the state Congress chief at that time, had earlier managed a coup against Kalyan Singh to become CM for a day, moved to help Yadav.

The Congress swung to give its letter of support to the then Governor to help Yadav form the Government. The party knew then also as to how the SP was mustering majority numbers, although it now claims that the apex court’s judgement has only “confirmed” its suspicion about the then “worst form of horse trading.”

Mayawati, who herself swelled her numbers in the Assembly by splitting the Congress legislature party, is now issuing platitudes about political morality.

To inflate its numbers, the SP had then welcomed “tainted” leaders including Amaramani Tripathi, prime accused in the murder of the young poet Madhumita. Several criminals in jail, absconders and defectors who had joined the previous government of Mayawati had changed sides, even as defectors like Nawab of Rampur, Kazim Ali Khan, defected again. He is among the thirteen disqualified legislators now.

————————Box——————-

Verdict reserved in assets case against Mulayam

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a public interest petition seeking a CBI probe into disproportionate assets allegedly amassed by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and his family members. On Feb. 13, a bench of Justices A.R. Laxmanan and Altmas Kabir reserved the order after hearing arguments from the counsel for the petitioner and Mulayam Singh Yadav, his wife, two sons and daughter-in-law. The verdict is to be pronounced on March 22.

On behalf of petitioner Vishwanath Chaturvedi, K.T.S. Tulsi contended that the allegations against Yadav and his family members were substantiated by material produced before the court and it needed to be examined by an independent agency. He submitted that if not an FIR, the court should direct the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry (PE) and if the allegations were found to be true, the PE could be converted into an FIR.

However, senior counsel Harish Salve, who appeared for Mulayam Singh Yadav, vehemently opposed the petition terming it as politically motivated. Salve said since the income tax department was already looking into the allegations, there was no need for another probe by the CBI.

Trouble for Mayawati

Mulayam Singh Yadav is not alone in facing problems in Uttar Pradesh because of judicial verdicts. His main rival, BSP chief Mayawati is also in for tough times as the CBI has approached the designated court in Lucknow with all the materials and documents including the investigation report in the Rs. 175 crore Taj Heritage Corridor scam against her. The Lucknow court asked the CBI to get prosecution sanctioned against her before it takes up the matter again on May 15.

The Supreme Court had earlier quashed the CBI move to close the case against Mayawati.

No security for persons with criminal background

In a setback for the Mulayam Singh Yadav Government, the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an Allahabad High Court order for withdrawal of state security to various people including politicians, contractors and student leaders with criminal backgrounds. An apex court bench consisting of Justices S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju said the state government could review the security provided to about 2,200 such persons and bring it to the notice of the High Court. State Government counsel Rajiv Dhavan had argued that withdrawal of security of various people without assessing the threat posed to them would put them in danger.

When Dhavan submitted that there should not be a blanket order without proper application of mind, like the one passed by the high court, the court shot back : “What about the threat to the common people in UP ? Only VIPs have the right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The level of hooliganism has reached the maximum level. Police are supposed to protect the public. What about the public ? Have you thought of them ?”

Justice Katju observed that even in Delhi, half the policemen were on VIP security duty, leaving very few personnel for the security of the common people. He sought to know why a politician needed security at all. “Pandit Nehru did not have this kind of security cover...the best security cover is your deeds. Do good things, you will not require security,” he observed.

India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics »