The Supreme Court unseated BSP defectors with whose help Mulayam had formed his government. Congress spokesman and lawyer Abhishek Singhvi drew attention in a newspaper article to the court’s observation that the defecting MLAs stood disqualified from the day they defected. This, he argued, proved that the government was illegal. The Congress demanded Mulayam Singh’s resignation. The CPI(M) said the government could only be dismissed if defeated on the floor of the House. Illegal MLAs did not amount to an illegal government.
The Congress demand had constitutional implications. If Mulayam’s government was to be considered illegal from its inception, should all legislation passed by it be annulled? If yes, this further complicates matters. Recall the case of former prime minister Narasimha Rao. The court found him and his home minister, Buta Singh, guilty of bribing MPs to help the minority Congress government survive a no-confidence motion on July 26, 1993. The two were convicted for having bribed Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs Simon Marandi, Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren and Suresh Mahato. The latter turned approver. Without the support of these MPs, the government could not have survived. According to a previous court ruling, bribe givers among MPs were guilty while bribe takers were not. They were protected by Article 105 of the Constitution. But it was accepted as acknowledged truth that the government’s majority was obtained through bribes.
On March 15, 2002, the Delhi High Court acquitted Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh on the ground that the approver, Suresh Mahato, was unreliable. Therefore, between October 2000 and March 2002, Rao and Buta were deemed to be guilty. May one conclude, then, that during this period the previous Narasimha Rao government should have been considered ‘illegal’? If so, matters could become more complicated: should it be considered to have been ‘illegal’ from 1993 till it demitted office in 1996? How should one consider the legislations passed by this ‘illegal’ government during the period? The most important legislation related to India’s formal entry into the WTO in 1995. Between 2000 and ’02, when Narasimha Rao was deemed technically guilty, should that have been annulled and renegotiated? Doesn’t the Congress need to rethink? These arguments rely, of course, on logic and common sense. Are logic and common sense relevant in law?
(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)
