'Seek The Resignation Of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh...'

It is to be recalled that in its interim order on October 7, 2005 the Supreme Court had opined that the dissolution of Bihar Vidhan Sabha was unconstitutional and illegal. Thedetailed reasons for these were delivered yesterday which are not only disturbing and ominous buthave long term implications for the democratic polity of the nation.

It needs to be noted that it is perhaps for the first time in the history of free India that an executive decision taken by theunion council of ministers has been held to be tainted with the vice of malafide. Much unlike the declaration of any particular law as unconstitutional on some legal infirmities, in the instant matter the entire decision making process beginning with thegovernor making the recommendation, and the union council of ministers, being the final authority accepting the same to invoke Article 356; has been held to be arbitrary, unconstitutional, malafide and based upon no cogent material warranting such an extreme step. All this has helped to create a situation which theapex court has termed as "subversion of Constitution".

It would be relevant to recall some of the stinging observations and comments which thecourt has made against the governor of Bihar Shri Buta Singh:

i) The action of the governor was a malafide exercise of power hence the proclamation under Article 356 was unconstitutional and arbitrary.

ii) The whims and fancies of governor will open flood gates of dissolution of assemblies which will entail dangerous consequences forcing the country to have another election whenever there was a fractured verdict.

iii) In the absence of relevant material much less due verification the report of thegovernor has to be treated as the personal ipse dixit of the governor. The drastic and extreme action under Article 356 cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the governor. This court cannot remain a silent spectator watching the subversion of Constitution.

iv) The action which results in preventing a political party from staking claim to form agovernment after election, on such fanciful assumptions, if allowed to stand, would be destructive of the democratic fabric.

v) The governor cannot refuse formation of government and override the majority claim because of his subjective assessment that the majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means. No such power has been vested with thegovernor. Such a power would be against the democratic principles of majority rule.governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman.

vi) By sending a report which contained no material let alone any relevant material thegovernor of Bihar misled the union council of ministers.

In the judgement even the union cabinet does not come unscathed in as much as it held that the "Council of Ministers should have verified the facts in the two reports sent by thegovernor on April 27 and May 21, 2005", instead of accepting it as a gospel truth. Clearly thegovernor has misled the Council of Ministers which led to aid and advice being given by the Council of Ministers leading to the issue of the impugned Proclamation.

It hardly needs emphasis that the governor is merely a recommending body and the decision to invoke Article 356 and dissolve the Vidhan Sabha constitutionally vests with theunion cabinet. Therefore, if in comparison to the governor, the comments of theapex court against the union cabinet is a bit milder, then this is no way minimises the implications because "being misled by thegovernor, the union cabinet in effect without any independent verification which it ought to have done, misledyour excellency into agreeing to such a gross case of constitutional abuse.

Even otherwise if the conduct of governor is clearly actuated by malafide as found by thecourt, in view of the circumstances, a very clear and categorical inference of malafide can be found against theunion cabinet, notably the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. This is evident from the following glaring facts:

i) No reasons much less justifiable reasons have been given as to what was the compelling necessity to hold the meeting ofunion cabinet in the midnight where the governor’s report was accepted mechanically with undue haste and without any application of mind or verification.

ii) What was the urgency to approach your excellency in the dead of night in far awayMoscow also remains curiously unexplained.

iii) In fact on May 24, 2005, on the morning of the Cabinet decision, the Prime Minister told the press at Ranthambhore that "an atmosphere of horse trading of the worst kind prevailed. We had considerable information to substantiate thegovernor’s recommendation. This was widely reported in the media both print and electronic.

iv) Therefore, the Prime Minister too was an active party to such a motivated exercise to invoke Article 356 and dissolve Bihar Vidhan Sabha.

v) What is truly disturbing is that in his statement at Ranthambhore the Prime Minister had publicly claimed that he had considerable information to substantiate thegovernor’s recommendation and yet we have a conclusive finding by the majority Constitution Bench decision that there was no independent verification by theunion cabinet. Therefore the Prime Minister not only becomes an active participant into misleadingyour excellency but also the entire nation as well.

vi) Now it is too well known to recount that the Prime Minister clearly knew that he is being forced into all this by the nagging pressure of his Railway Minister ShriLalu Prasad, who was determined to foil the government formation by Shri Nitish Kumar by hook or crook; and yet he became a willing accomplice to such a glaring case of "sheer Constitutional vandalism".

vii) Therefore, the Prime Minister too is clearly culpable in contriving a situation of urgent interference without any material that ledyour excellency too to take the extreme step. Quite naturally he got a chorus of support from the UPA Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi, all the allies of the UPA and even the leaders of the Left.

viii) The Bihar governor therefore as the recommending authority is evidently the fall guy but the culpability of the Prime Minster along with theunion cabinet as the decision making authority is even greater.

ix) A very disturbing development is discernible in as much as whenever the present UPAgovernment lands in a trouble because of its own sins, which it commits with alarming regularity; there is a conscious attempt to locate a scapegoat and paint him as the only villain. In the case ofVolcker report controversy when increasing evidence pointed towards the involvement of Congress Party, Shri Natwar Singh was made the scapegoat. In the overt and covert attempt to bail out Quatrocchi and help him withdraw the kick back Bofors money illegally from the London Bank account; somelaw officers of the union government and the law minister are being made the scapegoat, though the intimate connection of that Italian fugitive with the Gandhi family is too well known. These are only by way of illustration.

Therefore we feel that the declaration by the apex court that the decision to dissolve the Bihar Vidhan Sabha was unconstitutional arbitrary and malafide, which resulted into forcing an election in thestate of Bihar; has long term implications for constitutional propriety, political morality and democratic accountability. In the circumstances we respectfully urge upon you to seek the resignation of Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and dismiss Bihargovernor Shri Buta Singh.

With regards,

Yours faithfully,

H.E. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi.