But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knockdown argument’,’ Alice objected.‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’Precisely. When the president referred the issue of deferring polls to the Supreme Court, the media interpreted it as a battle between the Union government and the Election Commission. Possibly, but the echoes will resonate long after Messrs Lyngdoh & Co. have gone to that great red-tape bazaar in the sky. It puts a question-mark on a fundamental constituent of democracy — the elections.‘Democracy’ means different things to different people. To a Pervez Musharraf, it means farcical elections returning approval ratings of close to 100 per cent. In India, it means a government chosen by the people and answerable to them. In Musharraf-land, the dictator is the master. In India the masters are the people.So, how do the masters exercise control over the executive? The Constitution answers: through the legislatures. Never forget that the legislative wing is the only creation of the Constitution that is directly elected by the people, and which renews its mandate at fixed intervals. The judiciary, the Election Commission, and even the executive cannot claim as much. (Who was consulted before Gujral became prime minister?) So greatly did the framers of the Constitution rate the legislatures that they insisted that the executive face the elected body at intervals that would not exceed six months.That was the conventional wisdom — until, that is, the recent opinion from the Supreme Court. Before going on, please note that the Supreme Court was offering an opinion on a clarification sought under Article 143; this does not necessarily have the sanctity of a verdict given under Article 141. It is not, yet, the law of the land. Nevertheless, it opens the door for a ‘Constitutional dictatorship’.What did the Supreme Court say? First, that the six-month rule — namely, that the span between two sessions of the legislature should not exceed six months — does not apply to a House that has been dissolved. Second, that the Election Commission can hold polls up to six months after the dissolution of a House. So, how could this translate into a ‘constitutional dictatorship’?Well, consider a hypothetical scenario. An unscrupulous chief minister gets the Budget passed in March. Having proved his command of the House, he goes to the governor on the first of April and asks for a dissolution. The governor has no choice but to concur. The opinion tendered by the apex court has been seen as a victory for the EC. In truth, it is a blank cheque for an unethical CM to manipulate things to suit himself Ordinarily, the Assembly would be reconstituted on or before the first of October. But the Supreme Court’s opinion has changed everything. This, please remember, is an ‘unscrupulous’ chief minister, so he has no problem creating conditions where the Election Commission finds it difficult to hold polls. So, the elections are postponed, perhaps as late as the thirty-first of March in the following year. Meanwhile, the chief minister does precisely what he wants for up to a year, answerable to nobody.Impossible? Surely the Union government would step in and impose President’s Rule. But could it? Bihar is as misgoverned as any state can be, but it is impossible to end Laloo-raj. The law states that dismissal of the government must be approved, independently, by both Houses of Parliament —and the Rajya Sabha will never give its consent. (The National Democratic Alliance lacks a majority, and the Congress is in cahoots with Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar.)Right now, it isn’t Rabri Devi but Narendra Modi who is in the headlines. And while the Supreme Court’s considered opinion might suit the Bharatiya Janata Party today, the shoe could be on the other foot tomorrow. I, for one, am appalled that the six months’ period given to the Modi ministry has been extended, almost doubled, on paper. (Leave Modi out of the picture, I just detest the concept of an executive who isn’t under the scrutiny of an elected body.)How did we come to this pass? The Election Commission decided that it couldn’t conduct polls within a reasonable time, and the Supreme Court has given it the right to judge what conditions are appropriate. In the tug-of-war between Modi and Lyngdoh, the real losers are the legislature, which has been deprived of its powers to rein in the chief minister, and the people who now go unrepresented longer than necessary.Incidentally, that hypothetical situation about a chief minister ruling unchecked is more than a hypothesis. Twenty years ago, an unholy combination of a chief minister, a governor, and the Union government pulled off a coup in Assam. Anwara Taimur of the Congress was unwilling to face the Assembly. With the six-month deadline approaching, the governor recommended President’s Rule, putting the assembly in suspended animation. Days later, President’s Rule was revoked, and Taimur again became chief minister, with six months to go before the assembly meeting!The Supreme Court ruled that fears of the breakdown of law and order couldn’t be an excuse for Karnataka to deprive Tamil Nadu of water. Should it be a rationale for the Election Commission to delay polls?The opinion tendered by the Supreme Court has been interpreted as a victory for the Election Commission. In truth, it is a blank cheque for an unethical chief minister to manipulate the situation to his own advantage. Narendra Modi wanted early elections, not for them to be postponed; another chief minister might think otherwise — and now has the power to turn wishes into reality.
