On really wonders about the relation between MPs accepting bribes and licence raj and Nehruvian policy.
If MP fund is murky stop that.
Here the question is morality of people's representatives. If political parties do not maintain quality, their workers become corrupt.
The interesting thing here is the major chunk of easily bribable MPs are from BJP. Why did this happen? Is it due to migration of all corrupt and antisocial elements of other parties to BJP?
I am not sure I understand the issue here. You have bunch of MPs who have accepted money on camera (entrapment is more like it) for asking questions in parliament. FOR ASKING QUESTIONS IN PARLIAMENT. As though it amounts any useful service. How can this be corruption? What is the value of the service rendered? If someone offers an MP Rs 1 lakh for breathing for one day, does that warrant expulsion? There are hardcore criminals who are MPs and MLAs. These SOBs are punishing the least criminal activity while sweeping selling of india's foreign policy under a rug (it has been referred to a judicial commitee, but it is the samething).
That these MP cabal can get away with this kind of behavior is disgusting and a worser insult to democracy. <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Lok Sabha has expelled 10 MPs who were caught on camera accepting bribes for asking questions in Parliament.
The motion, moved by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee, was adopted after the BJP and its allies walked out of the Lok Sabha.
Leader of the Opposition LK Advani led the walkout, saying he could not associate himself with the expulsion which was disproportionate to their offence.
The members who were expelled include Annasahed M K Patil, Y G Mahajan, Suresh Chandel, Pradeep Gandhi and Chandra Pratap Singh - all from the BJP.
BSP members Narendra Kumar Kushwaha, Lal Chandra Kol and Rajaram Pal, RJD MP Manoj Kumar and Ramsevak Singh of the Congress have also been expelled.
In the Rajya Sabha too, BJP MP Chhattrapal Singh Lodha was expelled after an inquiry committee found his conduct derogatory to the dignity of the House.
Speaking on the issue, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that it was the duty of MPs to ensure that Parliament's image is not tarnished.
Rapist, murderer are ministers in UPA, they are also member of parliament, They can stay in power, where is jusctice.
Why laloo, Natwar Singh, Sonia Gandhi Jagdish tytler, Shahbuddin, Soren are still member of parliament ?
The motion, moved by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee, was adopted after the <b>BJP and its allies walked out of the Lok Sabha</b>.
<b>Leader of the Opposition LK Advani led the walkout, saying he could not associate himself with the expulsion which was disproportionate to their offence.</b>
In the Rajya Sabha too, <b>BJP MP Chhattrapal Singh Lodha was expelled </b>after an inquiry committee found his <b>conduct derogatory to the dignity of the House</b>.
Speaking on the issue, <b>Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that it was the duty of MPs to ensure that Parliament's image is not tarnished</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Walk out of the house? Is that the worst that BJP can do? These guys are really impotent. ACT HURT and WALK OUT! The idea is if you are getting mugged, do not giveup all your valubles without a couple of screams, instead of trying to avoid getting mugged!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Walk out of the house? Is that the worst that BJP can do? These guys are really impotent. ACT HURT and WALK OUT! The idea is if you are getting mugged, do not giveup all your valubles without a couple of screams, instead of trying to avoid getting mugged!
[right][snapback]43697[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After having condemned 'bribe-taking' for putting questions, can NDA stay in the House and <b>vote</b> against the expulsions?
I think this is the least that they could have done.
MPs and the maze of corruption
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Anybody who has seen Indian politics up-close will tell you that this is too simplistic a conclusion. Yes, most politicians will accept money in cash (though, of course, there are those like Manmohan Singh who will never do that) and use it to fight elections, run offices in their constituencies and look after party workers. But there are unwritten codes that allow them to believe that this is not necessarily corrupt behaviour. <b>They will not accept bribes in return for specific favours.</b> They will be careful who they take the money from. They will not use it to fund their household expenses and will restrict its use to political purposes. And so on.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow this is surprising. Hopefully its true and things are not as bad as I believe. But for now I still believe an honest(not accepting bribes for returning favours) politician is an exception if not extinct.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Dec 25 2005, 04:29 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Dec 25 2005, 04:29 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Media and Congress came out winner, they successfully saved Queen Sonia from worst corruption scandal. In return sold India for ever.
[right][snapback]43758[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is called a successful psy ops.
The Indian people are fooled.
<b>Narayana Murthy at the receiving end</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->NEW DELHI: Leaders across the political spectrum have come out strongly against Infosys chief N R Narayana Murthy's criticism of the political class, which he said, was "inept" and "corrupt" and did not own up to responsibility for its failures. Many felt that Murthy's criticism, made on Wednesday at a function in Bangalore, was "abusive" in nature.
An agitated Sharad Yadav, head of Janata Dal (United), asked Murthy to stay "within limits". He said politicians faced a difficult job in marrying aspirations of a heterogeneous mass of people. "I challenge him to contest one election and see it for himself. On the other hand, I can run a company easily because there you don't have to face people and are free to do what you want to," he fumed.
.......
Ram Kripal Yadav, Lok Sabha MP of Rashtriya Janata Dal, pounced on the statement as a "conspiracy to subvert democracy"of which corporate houses were also a part. "It is to malign us," he said. Yadav said there were enough honest people to be found among politicians. "He is elitist," he said.
..........
Samajwadi Party leader Ajar Singh felt it was sad and "unfortunate" that such a sweeping statement had come from a "respected corporate giant". Countering the charge, he said there were corrupt politicians just like businessmen had black sheep among them
..........
Dismissing charges of lack of accountability, Singh said politicians had to face people and even Indira Gandhi faced an electoral defeat. "But a businessman can simply declare himself bankrupt and does not even have to face the shareholders," he argued. RJD's Yadav said businessmen fleece the country by evading sales tax and other taxes but still manage to get away without being called corrupt.
Nilotpal Basu of the CPM said, "The statement is not worthy of a reaction."D Raja, national secretary of the CPI, said it was the philosophy of neo-liberals who don't recognise democracy and its institutions. "Murthy has always reflected this philosophy very well," he said<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with politicians. Murthy should fight election and let see how he survive or even get elected...
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Andhra Congress MP razes Lutyens house
New Delhi, Dec. 31: Rajya Sabha member Gireesh Kumar Sanghi has razed the bungalow the Union government allotted him at 7, Talkatora Road in Lutyensâ Delhi. In its place he has built a palatial house that now covers more space. The Congress MP from Andhra Pradesh was allotted the house in April 2005. In just eight months, Central Public Works Department (CPWD) officials claim, he razed the house and expanded it to cover most of the available space. This despite the fact that in New Delhiâs Lutyens Zone the rules do not permit any construction or alteration.
This is not the first time that such violations have taken place in the VIP zone. But the âextentâ of the violation by Mr Sanghi has angered CPWD officials. This correspondent was not allowed to enter the premises but could see through the gates that the house was still under construction and was massive when compared to the smaller accommodation available to other members of Parliament on Talkatora Road. The construction has spread to the area that in other houses is the lawn. Even CPWD officials, responsible for the maintenance of the building, are not being allowed access.
When contacted, Mr Sanghi denied the allegations, claiming that there had been <b>no deviations from the norms and that âsome minor alterations had been done to suit Vaastuâ</b>. He added: âFor such changes we need not take permission. The CPWD is a liar.â
However, a senior CPWD official claimed, âAfter getting the allotment, he demolished the entire house and, in its place, another structure has come up in violation of norms. The new construction is much more spacious than the previous one.â But the officials were unable to explain why they just stood by and watched instead of intervening at the onset to check the construction.
The staff at Mr Sanghiâs residence refused to let this correspondent inside the gate of the bungalow, saying no one lived in the house. âNo one is staying here at present. All the cars that you see inside the premises have been parked for the last several days. We do not know who the owners are,â they said. From the gate this correspondent could see some labourers at work, apparently giving finishing touches to the construction of the last eight months, as claimed by the CPWD officials.
A worker in the neighbourhood said the building material was being ferried from the back lane while the local police turned a blind eye to the violation. âThis shows how big people can manipulate laws. Rules are meant for poor people only,â said a staff member of a nearby bungalow. âWe have written to the Prime Ministerâs Office about this massive illegal alteration from the Lutyens bungalow and have also informed the Rajya Sabha house committee, but we are yet to get a reply. Till then we cannot do anything,â the official added.
deccanchronicle.com
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Review the role of Governor </b>
pioneer.com
Hari Jaisingh
A fraud is a fraud. A violation is a violation. Anyone who indulges in constitutional fraud or violates the law of the land or goes against the basic propriety of parliamentary democracy, howsoever well-placed, must not be allowed to go scot-free. This is the underlying message of detailed Supreme Court judgment on the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly delivered on January 24. Mr Buta Singh has since resigned as Governor, but not without some drama.
<b>Mr Buta Singh did indulge in a constitutional fraud by sending a highly politicised and partisan piece of advice to the Union Cabinet seeking dissolution of the Bihar Assembly</b>. This was a blatantly coloured view and distorted perspective on the goings-on in the State. Mr Buta Singh then had struck a high-pitched moral note on the business of horse-trading of elected legislators to the Bihar Assembly.
It is true that horse-trading in the name of "saving democracy" is part of the new political culture in the country. But what Mr Buta Singh was aiming at was obviously part of a larger political game he had been playing ever since he was installed as Governor in Patna. His was an out and out political appointment which has, unfortunately, become the standard practice in the corridors of power whichever party happens to be in the saddle.
A political appointee at Raj Bhavan is expected to deliver the "goods" to his patrons-in-chief whenever a delicate situation so demands. And Bihar is not the usual run-of-the-mill state. It is different from most of the other states in the country. What has made Bihar extra special in recent years is the larger-than-life presence of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav as a key partner in the coalition Government in New Delhi.
We all are familiar with the sort of personalised politics the Union Railway Minister plays when it comes to his state, which he has virtually treated as his personal and family fiefdom. Of course, he has a charming rustic style to cast a spell on his friends and foes. He knows the art of silencing his critics. He also knows how to come out of an embarrassing situation.
In any case, the apex court is not generally bothered about what goes beyond legal parameters. The question here is one of legality of the Bihar action on the part of the Governor. The Supreme Court has held the dissolution of the Assembly as unconstitutional and illegal and observed that this was done to prevent JD(U) leader Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form Government in Patna.
A loyal Congressman, Mr Buta Singh is a political person. He has been quietly nursing his political constituency and has often given the impression of his ever-willingness to oblige the powers-that-be to mutual advantage. Well, certain inconvenient questions could be raised: Was Mr Buta Singh prompted by vested interests of certain politicians? Was he playing any sponsored game?
<b>Mr Buta Singh had of late been trying to rehabilitate himself in the country's new-breed coalition politics which explains some of his controversial moves.</b> The Supreme Court judgment is sharp and categorical. First, it held Mr Buta Singh guilty of sending a malafide report on dissolution of the Assembly and thereby misleading the Union Cabinet. Second, it criticised the Union Cabinet for not verifying the Governor's report from its alternative sources of information. The Court observed: "...the drastic and extreme action under Article 356 of the Constitution cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the Governor".
The majority Bench further observed that "the court cannot remain a silent spectator watching the subversion of the Constitution. It is to be remembered that this Court is the sentinel on the qui vive". These are very pertinent observations. However, whether the Centre should have verified the Governor's report may be a debatable issue. But there was an element of indecent haste the way the whole matter was pursued. The Prime Minister called a late night Cabinet meeting for this purpose.
After getting the Cabinet's approval, he called the President who was then in Moscow and forwarded its recommendation to him. Dr Abdul Kalam faxed his approval past midnight. Though the Supreme Court has not directly indicted the Union Cabinet, its criticism surely does raise the morality question. But who cares for morality? Everything is politics these days - from a Governor's appointment to his conduct on vital matters. This is, in fact, a major functional distortion in the working of the Constitution.
Since the Governor stays in office at the pleasure of the President, that is, the Union Government, it is presumed that he carries on as long as he manages to be on the right side of political masters at the Centre. It is a actually a harsh fact that the office of Governor has become a politicised slot. A fair-minded enlightened person can make a difference to the functioning of this sensitive position. As it is, no elected Chief Minister would like the Governor to act as a parallel authority. Nor would he relish his conduct as a bully at the prompting of the central authority.
True, the Governor has certain discretionary powers under the Constitution in case of the breakdown of the constitutional authority in the state. But in normal course he has to be on his guard and be careful about his moves and counter-moves lest he should be exposed publicly. In case of Mr Buta Singh he has given enough evidence of being partisan and selective in his functioning. No wonder, he gave a clear indication of conducting himself as a political person.
Be that as it may, the Buta episode should give us enough food for thought on selection of governors. Even the Supreme Court has suggested a national policy and new norms for the appointment and conduct of governors. Quoting the Sarkaria Commission recommendations in this respect, the judgment clearly observed that for appointment of a person as a Governor, criteria should be that he should be eminent in some walk of life, hail from outside the state, detached and not intimately connected with local politics of the state and should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.
The apex court regretted that, <b>"Unfortunately, the Constitution has been totally breached by all political parties. It is seen that one day a person is in active politics, viz. holding office of Chief Minister or a Minister or a party post, and almost on the following day he/she is appointed Governor of another State with hardly any cooling period. Ordinarily, it is difficult to expect detachment from party politics from such a person while performing functions of a Governor," </b>the court stated.
The whole matter deserves serious consideration by all those who have stakes in the future of the Republic. Of course, most political leaders strike high moral notes publicly. They talk big without caring for follow-up action. There is a large gap between rhetoric and practice. This is one major reason for the decline in political standards. The way out of functional distortions in governance is selection of right persons for sensitive positions.
Indeed, time has come to review the question of Governor's appointment afresh in the larger context of making India functionally fair and politically transparent and accountable. The writing on the wall is clear. We need to reverse the drift in governance and further strengthen the spirit of democracy
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Introduction: <b>The office of the PM in the UPA government has been
seriously devalued. Dr Singh is shouldering responsibilities without
real power and Sonia Gandhi has power without responsibility.</b>
Parliamentary democracy in England or Canada or Australia has in reality
become a prime ministerial government and the office of the PM has
evolved from the status of primus inter pares or first among equals to
the present position of the leadership of the Cabinet and elected House
of Parliament.
The council of ministers is collectively responsible to the elected
House of Parliament, but in reality the writ of the PM runs over all the
members of his Cabinet. Not only this. The PM can ask for the
resignation or even the dismissal of a dissident member of his council
of ministers because appointment of a minister is his sole prerogative.
The PM can act as an unquestioned leader of his council of ministers if
he enjoys the unquestioned political authority over his own party.
Unfortunately, Dr Manmohan Singh is a PM nominated by Sonia Gandhi, who
is the real and unquestioned leader of the Congress party which is
leading the UPA government at the Centre. Dr Singh is not even a light
weight leader of the Congress; the real repository of power is Sonia
Gandhi who is the president of the Congress and the chairman of the
National Advisory Council. Not only this, every coalition partner of the
UPA looks towards her as the final arbiter of disputes or differences
between the Congress party and its coalition partners.
The Communist parties, supporting the Congress-led UPA government from
outside, look towards Sonia for their coordination with the Dr Singh-led
government. It is noteworthy that Pranab Mukerjee, or P Chidambaram or
Arjun Singh, or Kamal Nath of the Congress party care for the opinions
and wishes of the PM because Sonia Gandhi, the supreme leader of the
Congress, is supporting Dr Singh in his present position.
The Congress CMs too look towards Sonia Gandhi and not Dr Singh, for
guidance, advice, instructions and orders. It is Sonia Gandhi who
decides to hold meetings of Congress CMs and they have to explain their
record of activities to her and not the nominated PM. A telling example
is provided by the manner in which Natwar Singh, the former external
affairs minister, was made to 'quit' the Cabinet because Sonia Gandhi
had got annoyed with her own favourite minister in the Volcker Affair.
Natwar Singh was shown the door not by Dr Singh, but by Sonia.
The upshot of the above description is that the PM has no authority or
freedom to exercise his real prerogative of either appointing a minister
or in asking for his resignation. The Congress party representatives in
Dr Singh's Cabinet can continue at the 'pleasure' of Sonia and not on
the basis of choice or goodwill of the PM. The essential point to be
noted here is that Dr Singh is shinning in the reflected glory of Sonia.
He is in office because of his 'loyalty' to Sonia.
Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi or Narasimha Rao or
Atal Bihari Vajpayee were not only PMs in their own right, they
controlled the party organisation. Complete support of a party is a
precondition for becoming a PM in a parliamentary democracy. It is not
without reason that Jawaharlal Nehru threatened to resign from the CWC
if Purushottam Das Tandon continued as party president. The clash and
conflict between these two personalities was resolved in favour of the
PM and the party president was made to quit his elected office.
Indira Gandhi decided to 'split' the Congress party in 1969 when the
party president Nijalingappa had ganged up against her on the choice of
the party nominee for the post of President of India. Indira Gandhi
again 'split' the party in 1978 because a powerful section within the
party was 'hostile' to her. In fact, every Congress PM, except Dr Singh,
had been either the unquestioned and unchallenged choice of the party or
managed and manipulated party support in his/her favour.
A PM has to 'control' his party for his authority to be fully accepted
by every minister in his Cabinet. Indira Gandhi fought against her
opponents within the party because her authority as PM would have been
completely diluted, even eroded, if she had allowed parallel or 'dual'
centres of power. It is not without reason that V P Singh or Chandra
Shekhar or H D Deve Gowda or I K Gujaral could remain PMs only for a
very short period because none of them had either firm support of a
party or a coalition of parties.
Mr Vajpayee could remain PM from 1998 to 2004 because he was fully
supported not only by the BJP but also other coalition partners. In
other words, a PM is effective only on the basis of his own political
strength within the party of which he is the leader.
Dr Singh is not the leader of the Congress or of the UPA and hence he
cannot lead the council of ministers. <b>It has been observed that every
pubic controversy involving the UPA government is resolved by the active
intervention of Sonia Gandhi and not the PM.</b> He does not have any role
in the party's internal affairs because Sonia has the real power. The
functioning of the government is also affected by such an unnatural
'dual control system' because <b>every party or group in the UPA looks
towards Sonia for the final word.</b>
The Left parties had walked out and boycotted the coordination committee
meetings in the middle of 2005 because they had developed serious
differences with the UPA government on economic policies of
liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation and it was Sonia Gandhi's
intervention which bought back the Left to the co-oordination committee
meetings.
<b>Sonia Gandhi's National Advisory Council carries more weight in decision
making than Dr Singh and it had become clear on the issue of National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Right to Information Act
2005. It deserves to be reiterated that the office of the PM in the UPA
government has been completely devalued. It is not only that Dr Singh
owes his job to Sonia, all Congress ministers look towards Sonia for
their continuation in office. Sonia has power without responsibility and
Dr Singh is shouldering responsibilities without real power.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Beware, there's no morality in midnight haste</b>
<i>The Supreme Court judgment on Bihar is a shot in the arm for federalism, says SOLI J. SORABJEE</i>
Posted online: Saturday, January 28, 2006 at 0000 hours IST
The recent Supreme Court judgment pronouncing dissolution of the Bihar legislative assembly to be unconstitutional has enunciated far-reaching constitutional principles.
Consequent upon the elections to the Bihar legislative assembly held in March 2005 no political party was in a position to form a stable government. Hence President's Rule was imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution on March 17 and the assembly was kept in suspended animation. The purpose of imposing President's Rule was to explore the possibility of forming a majority government in the state through a process of political realignment. This was clearly reflected in the home minister's speech in the Rajya Sabha on March 21.
The process of realignment of forces was set in motion and several political parties and independent MLAs re-considered their position and announced support to the NDA led by Nitish Kumar.
The governor of Bihar sent a report to the President on April 27 in which he inter alia stated that "serious attempts are being made by the JD-U and BJP to cobble a majority and lay claim to form the government in the state... The high pressure moves of JD-U/BJP are also affecting the RJD MLAs who have become restive." Reference was made to alleged horse trading and other unethical practices. Another report dated May 21 was sent to the President from the governor's camp office in Delhi in which it was stated that "any move by the breakaway faction to align with any other party to cobble a majority and stake claim to form a government would positively affect the constitutional provisions and safeguards". In the governor's view, "if the trend is not arrested immediately, it may not be possible to contain the situation" and therefore it was desirable that the assembly be dissolved.
This report was received by the Centre on Sunday, May 22. On the same day, the Union cabinet met at about 11 pm and decided to accept the governor's report and sent a fax to the President in Moscow recommending dissolution of the Bihar legislative assembly. This message was received by the President in Moscow at 1:52 am (IST). The President accorded his approval and sent it by fax which was received at 3:50 am on May 23. Thereafter on May 23 a notification was issued at 2:30 pm dissolving the Bihar legislative assembly with lightening speed.
<b>Contentions of Parties</b>
Dissolution was challenged in the Supreme Court. Admittedly the action of dissolution was based solely on the two reports of the governor and not on any other material. The main grounds of challenge were that the governor's reports contained matters which were thoroughly extraneous to the exercise of power of dissolution under Article 356. The entire object of dissolving the assembly in indecent haste was to prevent Nitish Kumar from even staking his claim to form the government. The governor's reports were tainted with mala fides and the consequent action of dissolution based upon the reports was likewise tainted with the same infirmities.
The case of the Government of India was that dissolution of the assembly could be ordered to prevent even the staking of claim by a political party if its majority had been obtained by illegal or foul means or by unethical practices as stated in the governor's reports. Its plea was that he can override the majority claim because of his subjective assessment that the majority was cobbled by illegal, unethical means.
<b>'Alarming and dangerous'</b>
Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justices B.N. Agrawal and Ashok Bhan constituting the majority rejected this plea and held that "no such power has been vested with the governor. Such a power would be against the democratic principles of majority rule... If such a power is vested in the governor and/or the President, the consequences can be horrendous and would "open a floodgate of dissolutions and has far reaching alarming and dangerous consequences. It may also be a handle to reject post-election alignments and realignments on the ground of same being unethical, plunging the country or the state into another election."
The majority judgment further held that "there was no material, let alone relevant, with the governor to recommend dissolution and the drastic and extreme action of dissolution cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the governor". It rightly pointed out that cases of so-called horse trading and defections are matters within the province of the speaker under the 10th Schedule and the governor cannot usurp these functions and take these factors into account in forming his opinion about the capacity of a particular political party to form a stable government.
The majority judgment further noted the manner in which the governor moved, "very swiftly and with undue haste, finding that one political party may be close to getting majority". It concluded that "the object of ordering dissolution was not the professed anxiety to prevent distortion of the political system by defections and employment of unethical means but the sole object was to prevent a particular political party from making a claim to form the government and such action was wholly illegal and mala fide".
According to the majority in the facts and circumstances of this case the "council of ministers should have verified facts stated in the report of the governor before hurriedly accepting it as a gospel truth". It further held that the governor had "misled the council of ministers which led to aid and advice being given by the council of ministers to the President leading to the issue of the impugned proclamation". Strong condemnation indeed.
A fair reading of the governor's reports reveals that his burning desire was not to preserve democracy. It was really to prevent Nitish Kumar from staking his claim to form the government and thereby to placate an influential member of the coalition at the Centre, Laloo Prasad Yadav, because in the Governor's own words "RJD MLAs have become restive on account of the moves of JD-U/BJP".
The conclusion of the majority judgment is unexceptionable. Acceptance of the Union 's argument would in effect convert the governor into an autocratic political ombudsman and would be tantamount to replacing our parliamentary system based on the Westminster model into a presidential system.
<b>The minority judgment</b>
The dissent of the two minority judges, Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and Arijit Pasayat, are mainly on three grounds. Firstly that Bommai's judgment was inapplicable because there was no assembly in existence in Bihar as in the case of Karnataka and Nagaland assemblies which were dissolved. It is submitted that the different fact situation cannot detract from or dilute the principles laid down in Bommai nor displace its essential reasoning.
Secondly, according to the minority judgment, "it is nobody's case that somebody had staked a claim". With respect, the minority completely overlooked that the whole object of ordering dissolution with indecent haste was to prevent Nitish Kumar even from staking this claim and not the governor's fervent desire to preserve the Constitution.
The third reason elaborated by Justice Pasayat is that "if the governor felt that what was being done was morally wrong, it cannot be treated as politically right. This is his perception. It may be erroneous. It may not be specifically spelt out by the Constitution so far as his powers are concerned. But it ultimately is a perception. Though erroneous it cannot be termed as extraneous or irrational. Therefore however suspicious conduct of the governor may be, and even if it is accepted that he had acted in hot haste it cannot be a ground to term his action as extraneous".
<b>If this minority view is correct and the use of drastic power under Article 356 can be justified on these problematic and far fetched grounds it would inflict a fatal blow to the federal fabric of our Constitution and open floodgates of dissolutions and lead to alarming consequences as the majority judgment has pointed out.</b>
Furthermore if the minority view is accepted then its principle can logically be also extended to the President. It is inconceivable that the President can reject the claim of a party to form government even if it has the requisite numerical strength and the capacity to form a stable government on the ground that its majority has been cobbled by foul means. Such a doctrine would be alien to our constitutional scheme and cannot merit acceptance.
The minority judgment (Justice Pasayat) has relied heavily on Wednesbury principles regarding the standards for judging reasonableness of an executive action. Unfortunately it has overlooked that the Wednesbury principles have been diluted, if not rejected, by the House of Lords in Ex p Daly in 2001 and previously by the Privy Council in 1999. This was pointed out in the submissions (Part II Para 19) but somehow has escaped attention.
<b>In the end, fond hope</b>
Although the Court held that the dissolution to be unconstitutional it did not direct status-quo ante and revival of the assembly because in its view the election process had been set in motion and was at an advanced stage and judicial notice could be taken of the fact that considerable amount must have been spent; enormous preparations made and ground works done in the process of election. Therefore the Court moulded the relief and permitted completion of the ongoing election process with the fond hope that the electorate may again not give a fractured verdict and may give a clear majority to one or other political party. On this aspect there is no dissent by the minority judges. <b>Happily the fond hope of the Court has been amply realised by the electoral verdict in Bihar.</b>
The Supreme Court judgment is most welcome. It is a salutary check on the arbitrary exercise of power of dissolution of legislative assemblies under Article 356, provides an invaluable safeguard to our federal structure and is an affirmation of democratic principles. <b>In a sense it is also an affirmation of constitutional morality and a strong disapproval of the impropriety of midnight dissolution of assemblies in indecent haste. Above all, the judgment vindicates the faith of the common citizen in the independence and courage of our Supreme Court.</b>
<i>Soli J. Sorabjee is a former attorney general for India</i>
<b>'Stung' Uttar Pradesh minister offers to step down</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The sting operation, telecast on Wednesday on a private news channel, showed Ali not only demanding bribes for transfers and postings but also expressing his willingness to cart contraband drugs, including opium and heroin, in his official vehicle - for a price.
<b>He was shown demanding Rs 2 million for transferring every consignment worth Rs 10 million</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will India's Government
Survive November?
by Rajinder Puri
November 16, 2005
By this day next week the full Supreme Court judgment on the Bihar assembly dissolution should be out. It matters little what detailed arguments the judgment will rely on. By waiting for the full judgment before responding the Government merely bought time. The details of the judgment â whether it is unanimous or divided â will make no substantive difference. Under Presidentâs rule the Union Government passed an unconstitutional order that was signed for implementation by the President. Sacking Buta Singh will not suffice. The decision rested with the union government. So whose head will roll?
India is facing its moment of truth. It is not a crisis of government. It is a crisis of system. The system must change for the Constitution to survive.
The Prime Minister could resign. The President could resign. Both could resign. Neither may resign. This columnistâs views on the subject may be known to readers. Before the verdict an article stated the columnistâs position regarding the Presidentâs role and responsibility. After the verdict, it was written the PM must first resign or be dismissed by the President. After that the President himself must resign. Next, the Vice-President as acting President must explore options of finding a successor. If unsuccessful he must dissolve the House. If constitutional propriety remains the criterion, nothing that happened subsequently persuades a change of opinion.
The question now is: what could in fact happen?
Immediately after the first brief judgment the President and PM met. Next day in Chandigarh after the Congress Working Committee meeting the PM accompanied by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed the press. He acknowledged that the Union cabinet had to accept its responsibility for passing the unconstitutional order. This indicated that the PM had decided to resign. The Congress party spokesmen stated that the response by the government to the verdict would be given after the full judgment became available. The Bihar elections were under way. The governmentâs decision to buy time made tactical sense. The full judgment is expected after the Bihar polling ends. Will the PM stick to his initial response or backtrack?
In Patna on November 8 the PM criticized Governor Buta Singh while speaking to the media. He described the Governorâs recommendation to dissolve the assembly as âunfortunateâ. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment he said the Governor should maintain the dignity of his post. âI donât like this controversy about the Governorâs role,â he said. âIt is an unfortunate development.â Unfortunate it was. But equally unfortunate was the cabinetâs decision to accept the Governorâs recommendation, then attach a newspaper clipping dated a day after the recommendation was received to bolster its case, and then, at midnight, fax it to the President in Moscow for his signature. Does not this smack of complicity and conspiracy compounding Mr Buta Singhâs folly? So, do the PMâs remarks on Mr Buta Singh betray a change of mind? We should know next week.
And what about the President? He is a genuine victim of the constitutional confusion created by politicians and legal luminaries alike. It matters little whether he did or did not send the order for reconsideration to the cabinet. Awakened at midnight during a foreign trip he would have been justified in thinking there was an emergency situation. He signed the order. Hypothetically, had he refused to sign the unconstitutional order would not the media and the entire political class have been at his throat, accusing him of staging a constitutional coup? Now the President is in the unhappy situation of having breached his oath to protect the constitution. How will he react? That is anybodyâs guess. But judging from what is known of President Kalamâs character and temperament, this scribe believes he will resign. The Presidentâs unhappiness and perplexity become apparent from two unrelated incidents.
First, he recommended to the Home Minister a blanket pardon for several mercy petitioners facing the death penalty. The President also expressed his support for abolishing the death penalty. The latter suggestion met with criticism from several quarters including retired Chief Justice Lahoti. It is reasonable to expect diverse opinions on the subject. It was only a suggestion. For it to become law Parliament must decide. But what about the Presidentâs indication that all the mercy petitioners who approached him should be spared the death penalty? Isnât the right to pardon among the Presidentâs prerogatives? The matter is still pending before the government. How it is resolved will determine what, if any, power the President can exercise. By raising the issue at this time was President Kalam testing the waters?
The other event was more intriguing. On November 9 the President addressed a seminar in the presence of the Chief Justice and the Lok Sabha Speaker. He expounded on the relationship between the executive, the judiciary and the legislature. His remarks attracted media attention and sparked a minor debate. The President said that while all three pillars of democracy should be independent, the executive was not fully independent but was curbed by constraints created by the legislature and judiciary. The media seized on this remark and concluded that he was obliquely criticizing the judiciary. Legal luminaries jumped into the fray. None of them appeared to grasp the real import of the Presidentâs speech. The Presidentâs remark was unfortunate inasmuch that it caused confusion and diverted attention from the thrust of his speech.
The President reinforced his remarks by quoting 17th century English philosopher John Locke:
âIt may be too great a temptation to humane frailty, apt to grasp at power, for the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them, whereby they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage.â
Who are the persons in our present political system forming part of more than one of the three organs of Government? They are the ministers. They legislate, and they execute. This scribe has pointed out in the past the same anomaly â to suggest that accountability of government becomes notional when those who execute also control the legislature through its majority. That makes Parliament unfit as an instrument to check government excess. The President focused on the impediments that the anomaly placed on the executiveâs functioning.
What therefore was the President driving at? To understand this it would be helpful to appraise his remarks in the light of our Constitution. Article 53 of the Constitution says: âThe executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President, and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.â Thatâs pretty clear, isnât it? President Kalam doesnât appear to be confused. This scribe doesnât feel he is confused. Only legal experts seem confused and confusing.
If the President does decide to resign he should do so in a manner that compels a reappraisal of our system. If both the President and Prime Minister resign they would keep their reputations intact and have a public life after resignation. Alternatively, one or both could cling to office. That would preserve chair but destroy reputation.
India is facing its moment of truth. It is not a crisis of government.
It is a crisis of system. The system must change for the Constitution to survive.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Say no minister, and face the music </b>
By Manjari Mishra/TNN
Lucknow: Giving goose bumps to bureaucrats in Uttar Pradesh is a new band of marauders â the ministers â with an impressive arsenal of blackmail, malicious campaign, propaganda, public threats and worse. Senior officers are trying to come to term with the new lingo of power during private audience like â<b> âtujehe dekh loongaâ, âkhatam karva doongaâ, âpitwa doongaâ or a comparatively civil âyehan se dafa ho ja beyâ â even as none would like to go on record for obvious reasons. </b>
While untold tales of harassment by the bully bosses abound in the Secretariat, there have been at least half a dozen cases where the mantrijis pulled open the laundry bag in full public view.
The list of the more daring amongst them includes minister for rural development Rajpal Tyagi, minister for externally-aided programme Vishambhar Prasad Nishad, minister for dairy development Kameshwar Upadhyaya, former state minister for medical and health Jaiveer Singh with the latest entrants to the gallery â minister for SC and ST Dinanath Bhaskar and minister for minorities Haji Yaqoob.
On April 5, Bhaskar dashed off a complaint to chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav against superintendent of police, Bhadohi, Mahaveer Prasad. The four-page catalogue, later released to the media, charges Prasad with every possible misdemeanour, including hatching a conspiracy to eliminate Bhaskar or to implicate him in crime.
The officer has been talking about my Naxalite connections, Bhaskar writes, in addition to painstakingly recording a dozen other allegations, in the communication.
Lucknow: Minister for externally-aided programme Vishambhar Prasad Nishadâs threat to his secretary âMain joota le ke aata hoon maarne ke liyeâ, when he headed the ministry of geology and mining, had sent a shiver down the collective spine of UP bureaucracy. Secretary RM Shrivastav had merely declined to sign certain files till the CM cleared it first.
A fire-breathing Nishad then held a press conference to âexposeâ the officer and the tussle continued for three months before the ministerâs department was changed.
Rajpal Tyagi has more faith in muscle power than words. The minister, against whom a section of employees had carried out a campaign last year, is known to flaunt his âpast recordâ to get his way. The list of casualties in the department includes at least two senior IAS officers, including Anil Swaroop who, unable to cope, preferred to quit.
Kameshar Upadhyay is known for his foul tongue and aggressive ways with seniors in PCDF even as a battle scarred IAS officer, Mohammad Mustafa has created a record of sorts by making two VVIP enemies. After Raghuraj Pratap Singh, the district magistrate Rampur finds Haji Yaqoob snapping at his heels for his âdubious partisan activitiesâ.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I have seen how low-level staff and ministers treat IAS officers in Ministry. I was shocked. This is not UP phenomena but also prevalent in Delhi.
I salute IAS officers who had to deal with these morons on daily basis.
I have seen the opposite too where the ministers and low-level-babus dont bother (hesitate to say mess with) the IAS. I am not sure how it works out but some IAS officers/high-level-babus have figured out ways to remain honest and yet not get abused by the system.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->