Needed a fine balance

It is a difficult and demanding relationship in the best of times 8212; the one between the President, a Constitutional statesman whose office demands that he be non-partisan, and the Prime Minister, who represents the government of the day and the politics it represents. On many occasions over the past 50-odd years of this nation8217;s existence, there have been instances when serious differences have surfaced between the two people who more than anyone else symbolise the Indian state. There was that well-publicised spat over the passing of the Postal Bill that had cropped up between President Zail Singh and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the mid-1980s and there were also the differences, 30 years earlier, between President Rajendra Prasad and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru over the Hindu Bill.

More recently, President K.R. Narayanan8217;s handling of the crisis that led to the dissolution of the Vajpayee government last month has been the subject of some discussion. While debate and dissent are the hallmarks of afunctioning democracy and are perfectly in order, what is certainly less commendable are ugly whisper campaigns conducted in the corridors of power which have only served to besmirch the high office of the President. Prime Minister Vajpayee8217;s meeting with the President on Saturday was therefore a necessary corrective and characteristic of the good sense of the man. Last week the RSS weekly organ, Panchjanya, had quoted him as saying that the President, by demanding that he seek a trust vote, had acted under pressure from the Opposition. In his meeting with the President, Vajpayee is believed to have clarified that he had not given a formal interview to the Panchjanya and that he had not stated that the President had acted under pressure but only that he had come under pressure from the Opposition. There is, of course, a crucial difference between the two statements.

In times of controversy it is useful, in fact, vital to return to the Constitution. According to its canons, while 8220;all theexecutive actions of the Union8221; are undertaken in the President8217;s name, he is expected to 8220;act in accordance8221; with the aid and advice of the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. There is a fine balance to be achieved here 8212; Constitutionally, a President is neither all-powerful in himself, nor is he a mere cipher. There are moments, given the uncertainties of politics and especially the uncertainties of coalition politics, when he will be called upon to exercise his independent judgement, keeping in mind the circumstances and relevant conventions. There have been two occasions when President Narayanan has done this once, in 1997, when UP Governor Romesh Bhandari sought to impose President8217;s rule. The President, in keeping with the specific power granted to him under Article 74, referred the government8217;s recommendation back to the cabinet. Then again in 1998, he asked the cabinet to reconsider its recommendation to dismiss the Rabri Devi ministry in Bihar. While the President himself was acting as thenon-partisan defender of constitutional norms and values, both these actions had significant political implications. To perceive only their political fall-out and not the constitutional obligations that drove them would be doing a grave injustice to the Presidential office. Much of the recent misunderstanding over the President8217;s role in the recent political developments also suffers from a similar tunnel vision.