'I don't find anything wrong in our allies' demand'

BJP general secretary M. Venkaiah Naidu says that this party "is not against using Article 356" but feels that it "has to be used only in extreme situations where there is a constitutional breakdown." According to him, the BJP opposes the abolition of Article 356, but favours its amendment to introduce safeguards against its misuse. Excerpts from an interview he gave T.S. Subramanian in Chennai on June 27:

Will you agree that so far as the application of Article 356 is concerned, political cheating has been the rule? The Congress(I) has in the past dismissed many State governments, including those of the Communist Party, the DMK and the BJP?

The Congress has set a very bad precedent by misusing Article 356 a number of times. The BJP is of the view that Article 356 has to be used in an extreme situation where there is a constitutional breakdown. We are not against using Article 356. Parties like the DMK, the Telugu Desam and even the Janata Dal and the CPI(M) have been talking of abolishing Article 356. But when it suited them, they were using it against us (the BJP). They were abusing Article 356. As far as the BJP is concerned, we promised the people that we would never misuse Article 356 for political purposes. But our stand is that if tomorrow a situation develops in a particular State where the State is not run in accordance with the constitutional provisions, the Centre will definitely intervene and use Article 356.

Even after the Bommai case judgment of 1994, Central governments have not been able to resist the temptation to use Article 356. For example, the Kalyan Singh Government in Uttar Pradesh was dismissed by the Gujral Government. Do you think that Article 356 should be abolished?

No. The BJP is against the abolition of Article 356 because if some States say tomorrow that they want to secede from India, you cannot accept that position simply because the State Assembly has passed a resolution. Fissiparous tendencies are evident in various parts of the country. We are against the abolition of Article 356. But we are for safeguards against its misuse. Certain safeguards have to be evolved to see to it that Article 356 is used only in the case of a constitutional breakdown.

What kind of safeguards do you envisage?

If you specify the circumstances under which Article 356 can be used rather than leaving it in vague terms, its misuse will be automatically minimised. It is not so easy (now) to use Article 356 because the President has to be convinced and Parliament has to approve it. Even if the presidential proclamation is made, it has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Besides, there is judicial scrutiny. (Then), there is the precedent set by the Allahabad High Court where the Government which was dismissed was put back in office. With these precedents, we can go for certain safeguards. We need a broader, wider discussion on these in Parliament.

How can the Bommai case judgment be enforced in the rough and tumble of the Indian politics?

Even after the judgment, there were instances where State governments were dismissed. But the outcry against the misuse (of Article 356) is so strong now that there is a broad agreement that this should be used sparingly and that it should be used in extreme situations. So keeping that in mind, the BJP Government is very serious to bring about a sort of amendment to Article 356.

Will the amendments include the safeguards?

Yes. The BJP is talking in terms of setting up a committee to review the Constitution. The experience of the past 50 years shows that there are certain problems with regard to the use of Article 356, the powers of the States vis-a-vis the Centre, the powers of the Governor, his appointment, his responsibilities and his removal. This is another important issue because Governors function whimsically nowadays. They try to sit in judgment on the performance of popular, elected governments. At times, they act arbitrarily.

The States are clamouring for more powers in certain areas. However, they are not ready to devolve powers to zilla parishads, municipalities and panchayats. In these areas, our Constitution-framers never imagined that such situations would arise and such Governors would be appointed. That being the case, keeping in view the (past) experience, we feel that there is a need to review the Constitution...

N. BALAJI

The AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, the Trinamul Congress in West Bengal, the Samata Party in Bihar and the Biju Janata Dal in Orissa have been demanding the dismissal of the State Governments.

They have every right to make such a demand. They are responding to situations in their respective arenas of functioning. But it is the sacred duty of the Central Government to assess the situation and act as per the Constitution. So I don't find anything wrong in the regional parties or (our) allies making any demand. With regard to the dismissal also, political parties have been making such demands. At the same time, some of these parties which are now making the demand (for dismissal) were victims of Article 356. That being the case, we understand their problems.

At the same time, our submission is that our party goes by the Constitution, I go by the consensual approach of the coalition partners and I go by the commitment made to the people that we will run the country in accordance with the Constitution. The coalition partners should understand our limitations.

Often, the Governor seems to be an agent of the ruling party at the Centre. How do you tackle this problem?

Unfortunately, a precedent has been set - of appointing people who are regular politicians... Even if a person voluntarily adopts high standards and morals in politics, if others do not do so, he will be at a disadvantage. What I suggest is that there should be a total review of the appointments, functions and powers, including the procedure for the removal of the Governors.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar