ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Jethmalani feels President should accept defeated government's advice on dissolution of House

The President's powers to dissolve Parliament, use of Article 356 and judicial appointments are three major areas of the Constitution which need a review, Urban Development Minister and noted jurist Ram Jethmalani said today.

Inaugurating a seminar in New Delhi, Jethmalani suggested that in case a government defeated on the floor of the House recommends dissolution of Parliament, its recommendation should be accepted by the President.

Clarifying that the views expressed by him did not reflect government opinion, the senior advocate also said there had been prolific misuse of Article 356 to dismiss duly elected state governments. While the Supreme Court had ruled that a state government could be dismissed only in case of a ''constitutional breakdown'', it had also said that the principles of the Preamble could be taken into account while judging the Centre's action. ''This vague ground of the principles of the Preamble'' would make the powers under Article 356 totally ungovernable and this part of the ruling should be annulled, he added.

Recommending the setting up of a national judicial commission for the appointment and removal of judges, Jethmalani said the previous two experiments of vesting these powers either in the executive or with the chief justice of the Supreme Court had failed.

Addressing the main theme of the seminar -- the need to switch over to a presidential form of government -- Jethmalani said the presidential form of government was in no way superior to the parliamentary one adopted by India.

''What is needed is not a constitutional overhaul but a change in the political character,'' he added.

Former Lok Sabha speaker Purno A Sangma also said the present malaise and instability in the political system was not because of any lacunae in the Constitution, but in ills that had crept into the system.

''I am of the firm view that the parliamentary system is the best one for India. In a country of this size and with such plurality, decentralisation and power sharing is the only solution. Concentration of power in one individual will not be suitable for us,'' Sangma added.

While admitting that the country had been witnessing political instability, Sangma said the cause of instability did not lie in the parliamentary system of government.

Stating that coalition governments were a fact of life all over the world, including in several developed countries, he said what was important was for politicians to have a sense of accountability to the people.

Also, the coming up of a host of regional parties at the Centre had added to the instability. ''Regional parties are not meant to rule the country. They are meant to rule their respective states,'' he said.

Other speakers, including former Union minister Y K Alagh and political scientist Shanti Swarup, felt that switching over to a presidential form of government would not help and it was more important to pay attention to basic issues of social and economic development.

However, former minister Vasant Sathe and journalist Tavleen Singh felt that the present system of governance had collapsed, pushing the country towards anarchy. Sathe said it was possible to have an elected chief executive even in the present constitutional framework.

Singh said though a presidential form of government could be a long-term goal, the country should start with having fixed terms for the government. To dissolve Parliament and order fresh elections every time a government lost a vote of confidence was leading to ad-hocism and lack of planning in the government, she added.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report