Boot awe, Buta
Buta Singh, the honourable governor of Bihar, had earlier dissolved the suspended Bihar assemble. A dramatic overnight dissolution it was. Reason? He sensed "horse trade" with frustrated LJP MLAs in front of their stable by NDAs to sworn in Nitish Kumar as CM. Now the matter is in the Supreme Court (SC). Does he have evidence that can stand in a court of law for this "horse trade" (or) is it the job of governor to determine whether horse trade should be allowed or not. Let us not get into these questions and it would turn out to be more political.
However lets see something else here.
The central government said two things 1) Buta did the correct 2) Buta, as a governor, has immunity(from the court) for his deeds. The SC, in an interim observation/order, has quashed the centre's claim on the second count. It indeed mentioned that a governor has not got immunity for these kind of acts if his act is proved wrong.
Assuming, in its final verdict, if SC finds the governor's act as incorrect then the following issues arise.
1) What will the SC do? Will it ask Nitish kumar to demonstrate support he has? But Kumar had not officially claimed any support. He was in a process of getting it ;-)
2) What if "yeah! Buta's act of dissolving the assembly was wrong" kind of verdict will buy for? Will the Election Commission (EC) be ordered to scrap the election announcement and preparation? Or by the time the verdict comes and the loooong drawn election has some how got over and results were announced then what will happen to that?
3) How SC will view the act by Buta who dissolved the assembly, which in first place was not officially functioning (MLAs were not sworned in, to remind you)?
4) Does SC have the power to install a government? Isn't it the prerogative of President and his representative Governor? If so what would be the tangible benefit to the Bihar assembly if the SC finds the act of governor was wrong.
Remember the SC verdict on S.R.Bommai case, what purpose it served apart from the academic interest because he was not reinstated as CM of Karnataka based on that verdict.
Whether the SC finds fault in the dissolving of assembly or not the status quo would not change. I guess this has what given the guts to the centre to boldly defend its agent's incorrect acts.
But Soli Sorabjee, the former attorney general and the counsel appearing against the government has asked the SC to give a verdict that has tangible relief to the affected parties. This he mentioned when the SC has specifically asked him for.
So there is a ray of hope even when I strongly doubt nothing fruitful would come out of SC verdict.
Lets keep our fingers crossed and wait.
However lets see something else here.
The central government said two things 1) Buta did the correct 2) Buta, as a governor, has immunity(from the court) for his deeds. The SC, in an interim observation/order, has quashed the centre's claim on the second count. It indeed mentioned that a governor has not got immunity for these kind of acts if his act is proved wrong.
Assuming, in its final verdict, if SC finds the governor's act as incorrect then the following issues arise.
1) What will the SC do? Will it ask Nitish kumar to demonstrate support he has? But Kumar had not officially claimed any support. He was in a process of getting it ;-)
2) What if "yeah! Buta's act of dissolving the assembly was wrong" kind of verdict will buy for? Will the Election Commission (EC) be ordered to scrap the election announcement and preparation? Or by the time the verdict comes and the loooong drawn election has some how got over and results were announced then what will happen to that?
3) How SC will view the act by Buta who dissolved the assembly, which in first place was not officially functioning (MLAs were not sworned in, to remind you)?
4) Does SC have the power to install a government? Isn't it the prerogative of President and his representative Governor? If so what would be the tangible benefit to the Bihar assembly if the SC finds the act of governor was wrong.
Remember the SC verdict on S.R.Bommai case, what purpose it served apart from the academic interest because he was not reinstated as CM of Karnataka based on that verdict.
Whether the SC finds fault in the dissolving of assembly or not the status quo would not change. I guess this has what given the guts to the centre to boldly defend its agent's incorrect acts.
But Soli Sorabjee, the former attorney general and the counsel appearing against the government has asked the SC to give a verdict that has tangible relief to the affected parties. This he mentioned when the SC has specifically asked him for.
So there is a ray of hope even when I strongly doubt nothing fruitful would come out of SC verdict.
Lets keep our fingers crossed and wait.
posted by Kupps at 3:51 PM
3 Comments:
Now we don't have to talk about what SC would do now that it has done, which is nothing.
Now to the broader question of whether SC had the right to "undo", it is clear that discretionary jurisdiction to undo and provide remedy was established way back in 1977 (Rajasthan dismissal case). Bommai case apart from re-establishing that judicial authority also "chose" not to exercise that authority while establishing some guidelines. It also gave itself wide latitude in "moulding relief" based on circumstances. Now in Bihar 2005, SC has done the familiar thing. While holding forth on the constitutionality as usual, it has shied away from using its discretion while brandishing it and declaring that "this" was not the case to apply the "relief". One wonders when and if at all SC would find a case to apply relief
Seeni,
Thanks for the clarification on the authority of SC to reinstate the legislative assembly.
As i believed and as you have pointed out, the SC (interim) verdict has done nothing useful (fruitful/tangible/relief) . But my belief was based on the thought that SC does not have the full right/authority to reinstate a unconstitutionally dissolved assembly. I thought, at the maximum the SC can do a "recommendation" to the Govt. of India and the executive head (president) to revoke the dissolution order. However, as you pointed out and as the media reports say the SC had the authority and for some weird reason they chose not to exercise that. I stand clear now.
This aside, the reason cited by the SC for not exercising that relief authority is hilarious on the lighter side and outrageous to call it in tougher language.
'...because the election process has started...'.
The election has not completed, only the notification has got over, people have not even exercised their frachise. There are thousands of precedents where the court has stayed in-progress activities terming that it is sub-judice. Why can't the SC do the same? This "verdict" of the SC is at the maximum equivalent to a bloggers comments like these. Even village 'banyan tree' panchayat's verdict will have some relief component in that (Rs.100/- as fine kind of).
The fact that in 77 case, Bommai case and now bihar case the SC has not given any tangible relief to the affected party when it had acknowledged that a party had been victimized, only reinforces our assumption that there are some extraneous, perhaps political stability considerations that were also taken into cognizance by the court.
But whatever it is, the SC should have clinched its oppurtunity to strike down an unconstitutional act in the democratic India.
Time and again SC shying away from wielding its authority at important juncture is a matter of grave concern.
Post a Comment
<< Home