Tale of two democracies

In place of Governor Jeb Bush and his appointees in one tropical, seaside state, we have Governor S.C. Jamir in another state renowned for its beaches. In place of an electoral process where verdicts were being announced before the process was complete, we have an Election Commission trying to rush ahead of its own announced schedule. Mercifully, our own Supreme Court is miles ahead of its Washington, DC counterpart — and that could make all the difference.

On the face of it, the mess in Goa and the war of words in Haryana have nothing in common. Actually, they share two factors — the importance of arranging a proper count and the necessity of bringing in the Supreme Court. Let us take a closer look at both.

At what point on February 2, 2005, did S.C. Jamir receive the revelation that Pratap Singh Rane possessed a majority? The Manohar Parikkar ministry had won a vote of confidence in the assembly that evening. That majority had been manufactured by Speaker Vishwas Satarkar’s decision to disqualify Philip Neri Rodrigues, an independent MLA who had switched to the Congress camp. This disgusting sleight of hand immediately deprived the BJP of any claim to “morality”. It was open to the governor to declare that, under the circumstances, he saw no option but President’s rule.

Jamir was having none of these constitutional niceties! He summoned Pratap Singh Rane to Raj Bhawan. The beaming Congress leader then emerged to announce that the Manohar Parikkar ministry was being packed off. (Surely the governor could have left the job to one of his own aides!) Rane was then hauled back inside to take the oath of office, the aforementioned Rodrigues signing on as deputy chief minister. Jamir, who had refused to give Parikkar even a week, did not bother to set any time frame for Rane to prove his majority.

The Constitution does not make the governor the appellate authority in judging what happens within an assembly. He cannot count votes, nor can he rule on disqualification of an MLA (no matter how dubious the procedure). On what grounds, then, did the governor of Goa decide that Rane should be the chief minister? It is true that Parikkar’s victory in the assembly bore the stench of fraud, but it is equally true that Rane lacked adequate support in the legislature.

We expect governors to model their conduct on the President. K.R. Narayanan faced such a situation in 1999 after the Vajpayee ministry lost a confidence measure by a single vote. Jamir might have noted that President Narayanan did not immediately summon Sonia Gandhi to Rashtrapati Bhawan to read her the oath of office. He took his time and, after no other solution presented itself, dissolved the Lok Sabha and ordered fresh polls. Had Jamir been in Rashtrapati Bhawan, Sonia Gandhi might well have been the prime minister that April evening!

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Rane, on a writ of quo warranto filed by Parikkar, asking under what authority he holds office. Since the Rane ministry is yet to face the assembly, the only possible answer is that he is chief minister by the governor’s divine right! Rane may find that their Lordships will be harder to please than Jamir.

Let us now turn to Haryana. Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala’s intemperate language should not blind us to the fact that he had a valid complaint against the Election Commission. His five-year tenure was cut short by the Election Commission’s decision to bring forward the Haryana Assembly polls. The error was compounded when the date of counting was then changed, from February 27 to February 23. The ruling Indian National Lok Dal challenged this on the ground that it would mean 150,000 postal ballots cast by soldiers would be disqualified. The Supreme Court stepped in to say that counting of votes would begin as originally scheduled, on February 27.

The Election Commission says it switched the dates because the policemen guarding the voting machines in Haryana would be better employed elsewhere. This is an explanation but it is not an excuse. The best you can say of it is that it demonstrates utter lack of planning. Whether or not he stays in power, the Haryana chief minister raised fundamental issues which left the Election Commission looking silly before the Supreme Court.

It is interesting to speculate what might have happened had S.C. Jamir and the Election Commission not acted in haste. The BJP, rather than the Congress, would have been condemned for “murdering democracy”. Chautala, not the Election Commission, would stand accused of overstepping the bounds.

Yes, the Indian Supreme Court came good where the American judges faltered. But can’t constitutional entities such as governors and the Election Commission act properly without the Supreme Court looking over their shoulder?