The Centre’s conscious decision to pursue a pro-active and confrontationist course in response to the Election Commission’s order postponing elections in Gujarat has caused disquiet among those who value constitutional propriety and who recognise that the democratic order is based on a fine balance of power between the various institutions that comprise it. The point is that the Election Commission had pronounced its order — stating that it will be in a position to consider framing a suitable schedule for the Gujarat assembly elections only in November-December, after the completion of the exercise to correct the electoral rolls in the state — only after due consideration and considerable effort. Its constitutional authority to arrive at such a decision should have been respected and the order itself accepted without question. That, alas, was not to be. The BJP has, on the contrary, chosen to perceive the order as an affront to the authority of the executive. So riled is it that it even got Gujarat Governor S.S. Bhandari to rush to Delhi and reassert the view that complete normalcy prevails in Gujarat. Meanwhile, angry advertisements have been appearing in the Gujarat press which have plainly questioned the motives of the EC in postponing the polls. It is being made out to be yet another conspiracy against the ‘Gujarati people’. Such attempts to fling dirt at a vital constitutional institution by wantonly questioning its decision translates into undermining the country’s democratic edifice and the sooner the party’s more responsible leaders put an end to this unholy din, the better. In any case, the matter has now been referred to the Supreme Court by President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, under article 143 of the Constitution. The court will now pronounce on the three contentious points that have arisen from the EC’s order: whether Article 174, providing that not more than six months should elapse between two contiguous sittings of the assembly is mandatory; whether this article should yield to Article 324, which authorises the EC to supervise, direct and control elections; and whether the situation that arises as a result of the EC’s order necessitates the imposition of President’s rule in the state under Article 356. Now that the apex court is seized of the matter, it would behove the ruling party to rein in its more obstreperous elements. A great deal of damage has been done already. The ruling party, both at the Centre and the state, must now consider the consequences of its actions in this regard — not just for its own image as a party committed to the Constitution, but for the country as a whole.
