BJP won’t mind Pandey removal

Pandey — having dissolved the Assembly on recommendation of Chief Minister Gegong Apang last week — later sent a letter to Kalam, stating that President’s rule should be imposed in the state. The same evening, he sent another letter, seeking withdrawal of the earlier one, saying he was forced to ask for President’s rule as he was surrounded by disgruntled MLAs. He sought to stand by his earlier recommendation of dissolution.

Apang, also lobbying for dissolution, met Home Minister Shivraj Patil today and gave him the cassettes and documents relating to the Governor’s ‘‘gherao’’.

However, Patil cited Pandey’s actions to have the last word in the LS debate. ‘‘We have not given any assurance about not removing the Governor. One thing is certain that we will not act in haste. But what do we do when we get contradictory letters,’’ he asked.

Speaker Somnath Chatterjee answered, with a smile, ‘‘take your own decision’’.

Earlier, while replying to the debate initiated by Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani, the Home Minister said the Government had not committed any ‘‘blunder’’ in removing the Governors of Gujarat, Goa, UP and Haryana. It was in keeping with Constitutional and legal provisions, he said.

Replying to what Advani termed as an ‘‘outrageous assault on multi-party democracy as enshrined in Constitution’’, Patil used the arguments of constitutionality and precedent. He said the other non-Congress governments at the Centre, including the BJP, had not only removed governors in the past but also dissolved nine elected assemblies in one go in 1977.

‘‘A Governor is a nominated person, while an elected Assembly has a representative character. Wasn’t it more dangerous than removing Governors. It harmed the federal structure of the government much more,’’ Patil said.

On Advani’s remark that the CMs of the states concerned were only informed about the Centre’s decision, Patil said: ‘‘We did consult them in our own fashion… Consultation is not concurrence, and consultation is not consent…Some had readily agreed and some had reservations.’’

During the debate, Advani also appealed to the Home Minister to accept the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, Inter-State Council and Constitution Review Committee that had suggested that the governors should complete their full term. Patil said the recommendations of all three panels were only ‘‘advisory in nature and not binding’’ on any government.

He made it clear that a Governor held office at the ‘‘pleasure of the President’’ and also cited a 1982 judgement to support his contention. Quoting from the judgement, Patil said, ‘‘the idea of a fixed mandatory term for the Governor could strike at the very roots of the Union of India, endanger executive efficiency, affect Centre-state relations and become a focal point for separatist tendencies’’.

Mithi presses for President’s rule

NEW DELHI: Building pressure for Arunachal Governor’s ouster and imposition of President’s rule there, a delegation of MLAs led by former CM and PCC president Mukut Mithi met Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and the Home Minister on Sunday.