Has Indian democracy collapsed? The misinterpretations of the Constitution by the SC, and the mindless chopping and tinkering of it by Parliament, have rendered it unworkable. An imminent crisis may drive the last nail in its coffin.
Five state assemblies, led by governments supportive of the UPA government at the Centre, have passed Acts or resolutions that defy the central government's stated policies. Punjab terminated water-sharing agreements, Andhra gave reservation to Muslims, Maharashtra offered free power to farmers, Manipur sought withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, and UP reclaimed Haridwar.
The state governments acted in pursuance of their constitutional right to protect the interests of their citizens. Does that mean states are sovereign and a law unto themselves? No. Governors must approve state laws. But whom do the governors represent?
According to the Supreme Court's ruling on Dr Raghulal Tilak's case (1979): "His (governor's) office is not subordinate or subservient to the government of India. He is not amenable to the directions of the government of India, nor is he accountable to them for the manner in which he carries out his functions. His is an independent constitutional office, which is not subject to the control of the government of India. He is constitutionally the head of the state...without whose assent there can be no legislation in exercise of the legislative power of the state."
Is the governor therefore a sovereign ruler? No, the president appoints the governor whose actions and decisions are accountable to him. But the president, according to the Supreme Court, is nobody to take decisions. In the Samsher Singh case (1974), the SC ruled that "the aid and advice" tendered by the prime minister shall be binding on the president.
To recapitulate the situation according to the Supreme Court: The governor is not "subordinate or subservient" to the government of India. He is accountable to the president. The president, on the other hand, is powerless and bound by the advice of the prime minister. But the president alone might direct the governor who must obey him!
These two SC rulings are self-contradictory. If governors are not subservient to the central cabinet but are guided by the president, how can the latter be subservient to the cabinet? One trusts SC rulings are not wordplay but mean what they say.
The Constitution, and with it federalism, have collapsed. We refuse to accept this. We slumber as we work. A jolt may very soon force us to open our eyes.
(Puri can be reached at rajinderpuri2000@yahoo.com)
