Supreme Court judgment on Bihar

Think of nation, lest it’s too late
By Prabhat Jha

Supreme Court Judges Censure Governor “All canons of propriety were thrown to the wind.... Undue haste made by the governor smacks of malafide intent.” - Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice “The governor cannot refuse government formation because of his subjective assessment of unethical means.” - B.N. Aggarwal, Justice “The governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman.... Clearly, the governor has misled the Council of Ministers.” - Ashok Bhan, Justice

The kind of person who can be appointed a Governor may be a matter of debate and serious discussion. But there can hardly be a matter to debate to determine the punishment which should be given to Shri Buta Singh for his crimes against the Constitution committed by him as Governor of Bihar.

Merely being relieved of the Governor’s Office is no punishment. This was inevitably to save UPA of the embarrassment caused by his acts. Had he not tendered his resignation, the too embarrassed Manmohan Government may have had to remove him in any case.

Supreme Court has declared that the action of Governor Buta Singh was unconstitutional and wrong. Ends of justice do not meet with the Supreme Court or any other Court merely declaring the accused guilty but only when it also awards punishment to the guilty in accordance with the quantum of his guilt.

UPA’s U-turn on Buta Hours after the Supreme Court verdict, Congress distanced itself from Buta’s action, saying the Court had not faulted the Council of Ministers. But look how they defended Buta last year: May 23, 2005 Cabinet acts on Buta’s report, PM calls up President in Moscow, late at night. Kalam consults advisors before faxing assent well past midnight Home Minister Shivraj Patil: “Since situation was worsening in the state, Cabinet accepted Governor’s recommendations” CPI(M) statement: “Election result did not provide a mandate to JD(U)-BJP alliance. Yet efforts were made to buy MLAs, making a mockery of democracy” May 24, 2005 PM in Ranthambhore: “An atmosphere of horse-trading of the worst kind prevailed. We had considerable information to substantiate the Governor’s recommendations” October 7, 2005 In interim order, Supreme Court says Bihar Assembly dissolution was unconstitutional October 8, 2005 PM in Chandigarh: “I do not disown my responsibility as Prime Minister. There were specific circumstances on the basis of which we acted” Sonia Gandhi: “I don’t think Raj Bhavan (Governor) is involved in politics” Source: Indian Express January 25, 2006

In Bihar, it was not an individual, but the Constitution of India which was murdered. In our country, the Constitution is much above and more important than an individual. That is the way it should be. But this has not been the case in Bihar.

Who strengthened Buta Singh’s “anxieties” and implemented his suggestions immediately? The Central Cabinet. Will no action be taken against the collusive Central Cabinet? Law punishes a murderer and so alsol his accomplices who conspired with him to commit such a murder.

When Court punishes a murderer, it serves as a deterrent to others in the society and ensures that people respect law. But the Supreme Court has done nothing of the sort.

The Supreme Court also said that Buta Singh had taken this wrong and unconstitutional step for the benefit of a “particular” political party. What is the name of that political party? Don’t the people of India know which party is this? Why did the Supreme Court have to drop hints instead of naming that party?

Shouldn’t that particular political party, in whose interests Buta Singh so acted, should at least express its regret and apologise to the nation? Since the party has not expressed regrets, shouldn’t Supreme Court order action against that party? Should an individual or a political party get away with the crime without punishment or even regret for it?

By saying that there should be a debate on the kind of person who should be made Governor, the Supreme Court is trying to shrug off its responsibility. Is it not the duty of the Supreme Court and the Government of India to ensure that, in future, Governors so appointed after this debate won’t behave like Buta Singh?

One wrong was committed by Shri Buta Singh as Governor, another wrong was committed by the UPA Government, Union Cabinet, and the President of India was made to commit a third one after midnight by the Central Cabinet. Why did the President give his assent in such a hurry?

But the list of wrongs does not end here. Apparently, the Supreme Court was under the impression that after its comment, an embarrassed Buta Singh would resign immediately. But the tenacious Governor dug his heels in and hung on even after murdering the Constitution!

The Central Cabinet too had no leg to stand on for removing him at once. After all, his actions had been prompted by the same Cabinet. A day before recommending dissolution Buta Singh is on record having met the Union Home Minister. When Supreme Court delivered its judgement on the morning of January 24, Buta Singh’s resignation should have been sent or called for within minutes. But this did not happen. On the contrary, he was stubborn and defiant both of the Constitution and the Supreme Court when he declared that he would unfurl the national flag two days later on January 26. Our sacred tricolour was hoisted on Republic Day by the hands of this murderer of the Constitution on the historic day India adopted it.

We know that Shri Buta Singh is weak in the head but what happened to the Central Cabinet? Isn’t it a crime to let a criminal dishonour the national flag on Republic Day? Is this a healthy tradition?

What was the compulsion which forced Central Cabinet to allow such a person to continue in a Constitutional office whose guilt as the murderer of Constitution had been proved beyond doubt by the Supreme Court?

Who will answer all these questions? If the Supreme Court will only establish guilt and not sentence the guilty then who will punish the criminals? The Apex Court should award strict punishment so that no one dares to insult the people’s mandate and violate the Constitution in future.

At the same time, Supreme Court should also explain whether the Central Cabinet should ratify and implement an unconstitutional decision taken by the Governor. What step was taken by the highest Court of the land against the Central Cabinet which gave its seal of approval in the case of Bihar? Another question which arises is; shouldn’t the President, as Head of the Constitution, have given thought to the fact that Constitution was violated and murdered twice over?

The only person who has openly commented about the President’s action is the well-known journalist Karan Thapar who in his Hindustan Times article, has argued about the President’s intentions.

In dissolving the Bihar Assembly, it is not only Buta Singh who murdered the Constitution as Governor but according to Supreme Court, the Central Cabinet gave its assent and sent the unconstitutional act to President for approval.

Is there a system in Rashtrapati Bhavan for legal examination of unconstitutional acts? If not, then this should be considered and provided. It is not an issue concerning only Bihar or Buta Singh, but the real question is: When Constitutional bodies give their seal of approval to unconstitutional acts then who will protect the Constitution? If the Constitution cannot be saved then what will be the fate of the nation?

Therefore it is imperative that the Supreme Court sentence those who are guilty of unconstitutional acts in Bihar.