The views of most constitutional experts on the Jharkhand governor's role deserves the dustbin. The experts agreed that an earlier date for Jharkhand's confidence vote would suffice. They agreed that the President had no executive option to exercise. One of them even said that an early vote of confidence would not lead to loss of face for anyone. Is it the responsibility of the Constitution and lawmakers to save face of errant authority?
Regardless of how the Jharkhand assembly now votes, the governor's conduct was inexcusable. He deserves to be sacked. The President can compel the Union government to sack him. Any layman with common sense, knowing the English language, and having read the Constitution, would tell you that.
Last fortnight, this column drew attention to two incompatible Supreme Court rulings related to governors. According to the Tilak Raj case (1979), the governor is "not subordinate" to the Union government. According to the Shamsher Singh case (1974), the President is bound by the advice of the Union cabinet. Following both rulings would make the governor sovereign and accountable to none. According to convention, the later ruling of the Tilak Raj case should prevail.
By that the Union cabinet has no power over the governor. Then who does have the power? Obviously, it would be the authority vested with the power to appoint him. That is the President. That is why this column has repeatedly argued that the powers of the President need reinterpretation in the light of current political realities. The text of the Constitution should be literally observed. Only then would this problem be solved.
Another incident last fortnight reinforces this view. Three years after the event, former president K.R. Narayanan accused the NDA government of conspiring with the Gujarat government to foment communal riots. He told the press: "They (central government) had received legal advice on the possibility of my intervention if I continued in the President's office. They had decided not to support anybody for more than one term in the post of the President. Their aim was to get rid of me."
From this, the following things emerge: The President indeed can legally intervene. Why didn't he? Was it because, as Narayanan disclosed, his second term was being considered? When the Constitution is abused, the President is under oath to protect it. He must act regardless of the advice tendered by the cabinet. Narayanan did not act.
Let us see how President Kalam acts.
(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)
