NEW DELHI, 25 May 2005 — Indian Premier Manmohan Singh was called upon to defend the action to dissolve the Bihar Assembly with the country discussing whether the move was called for and whether it is legal.
Justifying the center’s action in Bihar, Manmohan asserted that nefarious activities such as “horse-trading of the worst type” were taking place and the center had no other option but to dissolve the assembly.
“Three months have passed since the state elections were held. No government has been formed,” he said, adding that the government was constitutionally bound to put a check on nefarious activities.
With the governor of Bihar, Buta Singh, recommending dissolution of the assembly, Manmohan said: “I think, we had credible evidence that there is no other way to deal with this problem than by dissolving the legislative assembly.”
Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj backed the Bihar governor’s recommendation, saying that it would stand up in court.
On whether the court could ask for proof about reports submitted by governor’s reports on horse-trading in Bihar, Bhardwaj said: “Once the governor makes a report on ‘horse-trading’ of elected MLAs, and the Cabinet is satisfied, then where is the necessity of proof.”
Describing the dissolution of the assembly as “blatant” murder of democracy, BJP Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu said that party was consulting legal experts on challenging the move in Supreme Court.
Naidu said: “It’s Congress’ ‘triple murder’ against democracy in just one year, after Goa and Jharkhand.”
Former law minister and leading advocate, Shanti Bhushan is of the opinion that “dissolution saved democracy from being murdered and prevented horse-trading.”
Ex-Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and ex-Solicitor General Harish Salve, however, think otherwise. According to Sorabjee: “The governor acted in haste. The decision to dissolve the assembly is legally untenable and instance of constitutional immorality. The first impression one gets is that UPA did not want to see any opposition party-led government in the state.”
Describing the move as politically motivated, Salve said: “It did not appear to be constitutional. It did not appear to be a bonafide exercise.”
Eyebrows are also being raised over the move having been exercised when the president was out of the country.
Had he been here, some are of the considered opinion that the dissolution may have been delayed.
Kalam is known to seek expert legal opinion before giving the green signal on constitutionally sensitive issues.
If the decision is legally challenged, the center would have to explain that all available options related to formation of Bihar government were exhausted before taking this step.
The apex court is empowered to resurrect dissolved house if it finds that the state governor’s recommendation for dissolution rests on weak grounds.
The apex court can also give an interim order to prevent fresh elections in Bihar while it examines the validity of the dissolution.
In a landmark judgment delivered in S.R. Bommai case in 1994, the nine-judge bench sought to correct any misuse of Article 356.
If the center has its way, owing to onset of monsoon, Bihar is not likely to face assembly elections before September. President’s rule would have to be extended as it would lapse by then.
Fresh elections mean another financial dent.
According to Saibal Gupta of Asian Development Research: “Rough estimates say a state assembly election will cost something in the vicinity of 500 crore rupees with the government’s share nearly 60 crore rupees.”
