President’s Rule in Uttarkhand Is Beyond Political Parties

First published on 30.03.2016

The imposition of President’s rule in Uttarkhand is so frivolous that it ceases to be an issue of political parties. It raises questions about the credibility of the political systems per se.

The politics have many variations in the spectrum bounded by two ends of outright autocracy and complete anarchy. The more it is towards anarchy the more representative are the political systems. “Horse trading” is of course against anarchy, but not because the MLAs/MPs switch sides but because they don’t exercise free will as representatives of the people. In fact the presence of political parties per se is against anarchy and representativeness. This is further aggravated by the presence of the forces, in particular intelligence agencies, who btw also do “horse trading” amongst other things. If at all representativeness has to be maintained through elected representatives, there just can’t be any scope for whips: all voting inside and outside the legislative assemblies/parliament should be through secret ballot so that free will can be exercised. Yes, the political parties should cease to exist. In the above perspective, I fail to understand how a sting operation showing “horse trading” matters. No secret ballot and the presence of political parties per se is murder of democracy. Nevertheless, a CM who comments on a “sting operation” thereby admitting to its contents is incompetent to be a CM.

P.S. BTW, technically speaking, it can’t be called “horse trading” if the rebels are lured back into the mainstream through money or whatever else. It would have been “horse trading” only if the rebels were lured into rebellion by external forces. For example, if an Indian Army general switches sides towards Pakistani Army, and the Indian PM offers him money to return with all the confidential information he has, it is no “horse trading”. That’s why I say the erstwhile Uttarkhand CM is an …..

P.S. I hear Arun Jaitely saying that the speaker of the Uttarkhand assembly has acted rogue; that he couldn’t have been trusted for running the assembly. This is a serious attack on the federal system. Legislative assemblies and the Parliament are the only anarchic systems, which are not answerable to judiciary and law in general. All they are responsible to are their own rules and procedures, and the word of the speakers is final on all questions concerning the functioning of the assemblies/parliament. In fact, what Arun Jaitely is saying is an attack of the Indian Parliament through the President of India on the Uttarkhand Assembly. What can be a better instance of attack on federal structure.

Comment dt. 28.03.16: Sometimes news debates turn really funny, especially when Sambit Patra is involved. I remember him once saying that if there is averred a typographical error, the typing machine should be send for forensic examination; on another instance he said the secular shlokas of Gita may only be taught in schools. Today also he is doing something similar though not funnily enough. He says if the Uttarakhand speaker has disqualified the rebel MLAs of the Congress, it should mean those rebel MLAs voted against the appropriation bill, and hence the appropriation bill failed as the law says an MLA can be disqualified only if he votes against the whip of the party or willingly leaves the party. So many assumptions: first, the speaker correctly disqualified the MLAs; secondly, voice vote was rightly conducted; thirdly, all BJP MLAs voiced their vote against the bill; fourthly, the speaker was bestowed with super natural powers to discern the voices of rebel MLAs from those of the others; fifthly, Sambit Patra has an IQ of Einstein.

Comment dt. 30.03.2016: I am surprised at the order of the Allahabad HC today. It seems the order of stay of the floor test is a concessional order from the respondent giving time to the appellants to file some affidavit. Incredible! An appellant files an incomplete appeal, and the respondent gives a concession to its disadvantage. This is never heard of. It seems the Congress itself wasn’t too happy with the order of floor test. Anyways, I think the order of floor test with results being sent to the court in a sealed envelope was just the apt order. I don’t understand why it has been stayed.

I think now the central government will pass an ordinance for appropriation of funds for Uttarkhand tomorrow. This would be an exercise to prove that the appropriation bill in the assembly was defeated, therefore the need for the ordinance. And with the defeat of the appropriation bill, the Uttarkhand government ceased to exist, and thus the President’s rule. If the legality of the President’s rule is in question in the proceedings before the Allahabad HC, the passage of the ordinance would have the effect of pre-empting the court proceedings with fabricated evidence, which would be mockery of justice. The single judge bench order for floor test was therefore the apt order because the question whether the government has come in minority can be decided in the assembly only, definitely not via a President’s rule followed by a perverse ordinance post-justifying the President’s rule. This, if a normal court matter, would tantamount to fabrication of evidence, which is an offence, but, unfortunately, if the ordinance is passed today or tomorrow, the President of India would be doing the same albeit under the constitutional protection. I am unable to understand what BJP is upto, and what the HC was thinking when it stayed the floor test!

About the Author

Ankur Mutreja
Ankur Mutreja is an advocate-cum-writer, and his blogs are amongst his modes of expression. He has also authored number of books, which can be downloaded from the links on the top menu.

Be the first to comment on "President’s Rule in Uttarkhand Is Beyond Political Parties"

Trolls Welcomed :-)

%d bloggers like this: