Bring in the Rajya Sabha

It is true that the Constitution does not differentiate between normal and caretaker governments. It is also true that there8217;s nothing specific in the Constitution to forbid the caretaker set-up from governing the way it wants. Yet the spirit of the Constitution is against the ousted government arrogating to itself the authority which belongs to legitimate representatives. The government cannot simply take such decisions, particularly relating to policy, as are supposed to have popular backing. For the Vajpayee coalition to say that it knows of no restrictions on the government8217;s working is neither morally right nor legally justifiable. This is a stop-gap arrangement. It has to keep within limits, whatever the banter or bluster of Information and Broadcasting Minister Pramod Mahajan.Of course, it would have been ideal if India, prone to frequent elections, had adopted the constitutional provision, which Bangladesh has when it faces the situation where the government in power quits and elections are announced. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court steps in automatically. He heads the caretaker government and selects his own team. The only obligation imposed on him is to have the polls within 90 days and hand over power to the new government as soon as elections are over. There cannot be two opinions on the subject: the government8217;s regime has to be minimum so that the representative set-up takes over. That is what democracy is all about.

Since the Vajpayee government will be in power till September, it is incumbent on it to keep the Rajya Sabha in the picture. The House can keep track of what the government does. But the Rajya Sabha has been blocked. The Upper House cannot meet until a new Lok Sabha is in position. What is said officially is that in the absence of legislative business, there is no work for the Rajya Sabha to consider. Is the government business confined only to passing Bills? So many situations demand a debate. Even otherwise, people want a periodic report on the state of the nation. The government can keep people informed through the Rajya Sabha sessions.

The heart of the problem is not whether the caretaker government is entitled to function but whether it can do so without being questioned. Can it take decisions without any scrutiny? The President is there, but he stays behind the scenes. The Rajya Sabha is independent. It has no such constraints. It is the legitimate House, where the government can be arraigned for its actions. Through the House, everything will come in the public gaze. This is of great value in a parliamentary system because the government remains accountable.

The Constitution says that Parliament consists of 8220;President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of states and the House of the people8221;. The Council of states is mentioned first so as to emphasise its importance. But the practice adopted is to keep the Rajya Sabha in limbo till the Lok Sabha comes to life. Both Houses are important. Every Bill, except the one relating to money, has to have the approval of both the Ho-uses and every debate is duplicated.

The Constituent Assembly reports show that the founding fathers wanted the states to have as much a say in the central affairs as a directly-elected House. In fact, to give stature to the Upper House, they laid down that the vice-president would preside over its sittings. Downgrading or ignoring the Rajya Sabha is against the wishes of the Constituent Assembly, which never wanted the Rajya Sabha to be bypassed. Some bureaucratic hand is visible in the dilution of its authority. The reply I have received from the secretariat of Parliamentary Affairs to my questioning in this regard was not direct. The right of the Rajya Sabha has not been questioned, the timing, without the Lok Sabha being there, has been.

When the Constituent Assembly decided to have an Upper House, it had two things in mind: one, it wanted active association of the states with the central legislation. It felt that there should be a House to discuss in detail and in a leisurely manner what the Lower House might not have done because of the hustle and bustle of politics. At one stage, the thinking was to copy the pattern followed in the US 8212; a directly-elected Senate. But it was realised that the Parliament system of governance might face unnecessary complications if both Houses were directly elected. At no stage was there any move to downgrade the Upper House which has been done over the years.

It is not that a caretaker government has not used it whenever the contingency has arisen. There is the example of the extension of President8217;s rule in Tamil Nadu some years ago. Parliament8217;s approval was necessary at the end of six months to effect it. The Lok Sabha had been dissolved and there was no way to have the new one constituted within the period required. The Rajya Sabha was convened to provide the seal of approval. It was then interpreted that the Rajya Sabha, in the absence of the Lok Sabha, constituted Parliament.

Why is there a different yardstick when it comes to the caretaker government? It happened during the non-BJP caretaker governments headed by Chandra Shekhar and Inder Kumar Gujral. It is no different when the BJP leads the government. When the caretaker government has to recommend to the President whether to summon the Rajya Sabha or not, the result is obvious. The President should take necessary steps to convene the Rajya Sabha.