Uttarakhand crisis shows it is achhe din only for BJP-ruled states
Democracy mourned in Uttarakhand on the day of Easter. Violating all norms of democracy and constitutional propriety, Modi sarkar imposed the President's Rule in Uttarakhand.
Justifying the action, it has been argued that President's Rule was imposed in the Himalayan state based on the recommendation of the governor that there was "breakdown in the governance of the state".
The finance minister has gone on record to claim there were "cogent, relevant and extremely important grounds" for imposing the central rule. Was there any evidence of any breakdown, either administrative or of constitutional character, based on which the governor advised the Centre to impose Article 356 on the state?
Was any warning issued to the state government that it was not being run according to the Constitution or rule of law and that if corrective measures were not taken, Article 356 would be imposed?
Was any direction issued to the state government under Article 356? The answer to all these questions is: No.
So, how did Modi government realise, after all attempts made to destabilise the Harish Rawat government failed, that there was governance failure in the state, which attracted the imposition of the President's rule?
Why was the midnight Cabinet meeting necessary when the floor test was yet to be conducted? Stings, the authenticity of which is yet to be established, cannot be a relevant ground to summarily reject a popularly elected government. This is a mockery of democracy.
The collective wisdom of Modi government has violated the Supreme Court directive while imposing central rule in Uttarakhand. In the S R Bomai case, the apex court had categorically stated whether a government enjoys majority in the House or not must be proved on the floor of the House - the only, appropriate place to test the majority of a government.
It further stated that where a ministry has not been defeated on the floor of the House, governor, based on his subjective assessment, cannot recommend supersession and imposition of President's rule.
A new precedent was set when a democratically-elected government was shown the door on the eve of the floor test authorised by the governor. Therefore, even the constitutional pundits were surprised when Article 356 was imposed in Uttarakhand a day before the Harish Rawat government was to prove its majority on the floor of the House.
The government was authorised by the governor for the floor test on March 28. The principle of natural justice was not followed before dismissing the Harish Rawat government and imposing President's rule in the state. Therefore, no propriety and no logic except mala fide intention can justify the action of the Modi government. Ever since it has come to power, it has been following a systematic design to destabilise elected governments in non BJP-ruled states. First, it was Arunachal Pradesh and now it is Uttarakhand. Perhaps, this is the Modi model of cooperative federalism.
The Supreme Court while examining the Arunachal case had said in unambiguous terms that while the governor may have some role in the functioning of the Assembly, he has no role to play in the issues prescribed in the tenth schedule of the Constitution. The governor cannot take away the powers the Constitution has given to the speaker.
The latter is the sole authority to interpret rules of procedure in the House. And I think it was because of this power vested with the speaker that the Aadhaar Bill was classified as a money bill in Parliament and even though there was enough evidence and precedence to prove otherwise, the decision was accepted with a heavy heart.
Under Article 122 of the Constitution, the speaker's conduct in regulating the procedure or maintaining order in the House will not be subject to the jurisdiction of any court. So, the March 21 instruction from Raj Bhawan to maintain a particular composition in the House and not to act against the rebels under anti-defection law is questionable as it amounts to interference in the working sphere of the speaker.
The MLAs did not have the sufficient number to break away, so the speaker was duty bound to act against them under the anti-defection law. How the governor can advise speaker not to act according to constitution?
Modi government needs to be reminded that India is a cooperative federation and in such a structure, the central government does not rule by majority alone, but it also needs moral authority to govern. It loses the authority if it does not display a sense of constitutional morality and a sense of justice and fairness towards democratically-elected state governments. In the Uttarakhand case, the Central government has acted in a manner which, at best, has been contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and, at worst, is tantamount to a fraud upon the Constitution.
Uttarakhand is a fit case to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Article 356 should be used very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a last resort, when all available alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state. All attempts should be made to resolve the crisis at the state level before taking recourse to the provisions of Article 356.
In the case of Uttarakhand, like Arunachal Pradesh, President's rule has been imposed with mala-fide intention and without basis of any relevant material.
Apart from the legality of the central rule, which remains questionable, the intention and actions of the Modi government wills serve, once again, as a grave reminder to regional parties as Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarkhand may not be the last states to suffer. They should realise the real and present threat to democracy and rise to the occasion.