'As along as Article 356 is in the statute book, it has a use'

Lok Shakti leader and Union Commerce Minister Ramakrishna Hegde was the first senior member of the BJP-led coalition Government to oppose the proposal to invoke Article 356 in Bihar. He called it a "monumental mistake". However, he changed his mind in a matter of three days. He is now of the view that there exists a prima facie case for the dismissal of the Rabri Devi Government on the grounds of breakdown of the constitutional machinery. Excerpts from an interview he gave Parvathi Menon:

Initially, you objected strongly to an attempt by the BJP Government to dismiss the Bihar Government under the provisions of Article 356. But now you have declared your support for that move. How do you explain this shift in your stand? Expediencies of coalition politics?

K. BHAGYAPRAKASH

It is not correct to say that I supported the move. The day the Cabinet meeting was held, I was in Bangalore and I could not reach New Delhi as I got the notice late. I sent a fax to the Prime Minister, saying that this was an ill-advised move and that before taking a final decision the following points should be taken into consideration. In the first place, I said that it may not get the approval of the President. Secondly, it is against federal principles. Thirdly, it is not in accordance with our National Agenda for Governance. I said that during the last six months we had committed many avoidable mistakes, and if we take this decision it would be a monumental mistake. But then the Cabinet decided to recommend that Article 356 be invoked and a presidential proclamation issued. After that I attended a Cabinet meeting, an informal one, after the President sent back the proposal for reconsideration. And there also I said we should accept the President's views gracefully. Someone said it would be a loss of face for us. I disagreed. There were views for and against. Then we thought that we should consult the Prime Minister before taking a final decision.

The same evening a formal Cabinet meeting was convened. It was finally decided that in deference to the views of the President, we should not pursue the matter for the present. Situations go on changing and perhaps new factors come into play. So that was the decision. Since then, I have received reports independently on the situation in Bihar, which is really anarchic - no doubt about it. There is total financial mismanagement and law and order has collapsed and is beyond control. If proper documentation is made giving proper data, the President may reconsider the matter - though not immediately. There is no time frame. The President has said in his observation that a case for the collapse of the law and order and constitutional machinery has not been adequately made out. So that means we have not given him sufficient data and information to convince him about the actual situation.

So, between your fax message to Vajpayee and now, the situation has changed to such an extent that a case now exists for President's Rule?

Everyday the situation is deteriorating. Husband (Laloo Prasad Yadav) and wife (Rabri Devi) are camping in Delhi. Nobody is interested in administration. There are floods in the State... If we can prepare a case in a convincing manner, the President may reconsider.

Did the BJP not do its homework?

Well, perhaps the President was not satisfied with the Governor's report.

You have read the Governor's report. Do you too feel that it is not convincing?

I have not read the Governor's report. I have opposed the use of Article 356 for the last 30 years. I myself would have become a victim of it. N.T. Rama Rao was its victim. I have not suggested its abolition, I said there should be some norms for invoking it. The Congress(I) Government used it as a political weapon.

How differently is the BJP using it? Law and order problems do not amount to a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. If that were the criterion, some States ruled by the BJP are very strong candidates for the use of Article 356.

What constitutes the constitutional machinery? The State administration is itself a part of it. If the administration is not proper, that is one of the reasons we can cite. Then there is the judiciary. There are hundreds of cases of contempt of court filed against the Bihar Government because it has not implemented the court's orders. This is a very glaring case of breakdown of the constitutional machinery. And what is the remedy? A citizen's ultimate source of remedy against executive excesses is the court. When the High Court decides in his favour, and he does not get relief because the Government fails to implement the court order, it is a glaring example of a constitutional breakdown.

The initial proposal was to keep the Assembly in suspended animation, giving rise to suspicion that this period would be used for encouraging defections.

I had the same feeling. At the informal Cabinet meeting, I raised this question. Then (L.K.) Advani said that because of the President's observation in the previous case (the dismissal of the Uttar Pradesh Govern-ment led by Kalyan Singh), we decided not to recommend the dissolution of the Assembly, as the invocation of Article 356 has to be ratified by both Houses of Parliament. My views are very clear. If Article 356 is invoked and President's Rule promulgated in any State, the Assembly should be dissolved simultaneously. The people's verdict is final - they must decide what kind of government they want.

So you have veered to a position where you say that President's Rule is justified, but that a case has to be built up to justify it.

You are absolutely right. Because, as along as Article 356 is in the statute book, it has a use. How and when it should be used is a matter of both conviction and judgment.

Do you deny that the BJP-led coalition is using Article 356 as a political weapon?

I am convinced of that. The change in my stance is because I had not got the right picture. I have not been to Bihar, particularly not since the Government changed hands from husband to wife. George Fernandes gave me a vivid picture of what happened in Bihar.

This was after the second Cabinet meeting?

Yes. Even George (Fernandes) came around after the President asked us to reconsider. He told me what exactly was happening in Bihar. Then I thought that the case had not been adequately made out. The situation is awful, you must hear the stories. There is absolutely no law and order. Teachers have not been paid their salaries for years, bus conductors have not been paid. If Article 356 is invoked in the case of Bihar and the President approves it, then if a similar situation prevails in any other State, irrespective of the party in power, the same norms will apply.

Do you think the proposal should be sent back to the President?

Not immediately. I never suggested that. There was also a suggestion that a warning should be given to the State Government. If it improves and brings about some modicum of civil administration, it may not be necessary to suggest that Article 356 be used.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar