NEW DELHI: "Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic." -B R Ambedkar
For all the durability of Indian democracy, these words of B R Ambedkar on the deficiencies in its morality have proved to be prescient on more than one occasion, the latest being horse trading by both sides in the run-up to Tuesday's vote of confidence.
If constitutional morality is yet to be cultivated even six decades after independence, there is little that law can do to check horse trading at such a critical juncture given the inherent loopholes in the anti-defection provisions. It is not legally feasible for a political party to prevent an MP from voting contrary to its whip. Legal sanctions can apply only post facto, after horse trading has already played a crucial role in bringing down or saving the government.
For all its activism to maintain probity in public life, the Supreme Court too has been unable to find a solution to the recurring problem of horse trading whether at the Centre or in the states. The last time it dealt with the issue was barely two years ago in the context of the UPA government's ill-fated decision to impose president's rule in Bihar apparently to prevent NDA from getting over a fractured mandate through horse trading.
It is ironical that that very government that is now engaged in horse trading for its survival had sought to justify the President's rule in Bihar by arguing vehemently that no political party could be allowed to stake a claim if its majority had been obtained by foul means or unethical practices.
But given the suspicious timing of the President's rule in Bihar, the Supreme Court found no scope to give a ruling on the impact of horse trading on constitutional morality. Instead, it held that "the object of ordering dissolution was not the professed anxiety to prevent distortion of the political system by defections and employment of unethical means but the sole object was to prevent a particular political party from making a claim to form the government and such action was wholly illegal and mala fide."
The Supreme Court's failure to deal with the possibility of horse trading in the context of Bihar came on top of its controversial ruling in the JMM bribery case conferring immunity on MPs who took bribes and voted in the Lok Sabha to help defeat a no-confidence motion in 1993 against the Narasimha Rao government.
Senior advocate Anil Diwan said that the MPs who took bribes in the current context should be forced to make a confession on the transactions since they anyway enjoyed immunity against criminal proceedings. "Given the astronomical figures being bandied about, the tax authorities would be entitled to question the bribe taking MPs to trace the source of funding," Diwan added.
In a related reform, senior advocate P P Rao suggests that the Representation of the People Act should be amended to make provision for registering pre-poll alliances with the Election Commission in order to reduce the susceptibility of splinter groups to horse trading.
For all the durability of Indian democracy, these words of B R Ambedkar on the deficiencies in its morality have proved to be prescient on more than one occasion, the latest being horse trading by both sides in the run-up to Tuesday's vote of confidence.
If constitutional morality is yet to be cultivated even six decades after independence, there is little that law can do to check horse trading at such a critical juncture given the inherent loopholes in the anti-defection provisions. It is not legally feasible for a political party to prevent an MP from voting contrary to its whip. Legal sanctions can apply only post facto, after horse trading has already played a crucial role in bringing down or saving the government.
For all its activism to maintain probity in public life, the Supreme Court too has been unable to find a solution to the recurring problem of horse trading whether at the Centre or in the states. The last time it dealt with the issue was barely two years ago in the context of the UPA government's ill-fated decision to impose president's rule in Bihar apparently to prevent NDA from getting over a fractured mandate through horse trading.
It is ironical that that very government that is now engaged in horse trading for its survival had sought to justify the President's rule in Bihar by arguing vehemently that no political party could be allowed to stake a claim if its majority had been obtained by foul means or unethical practices.
But given the suspicious timing of the President's rule in Bihar, the Supreme Court found no scope to give a ruling on the impact of horse trading on constitutional morality. Instead, it held that "the object of ordering dissolution was not the professed anxiety to prevent distortion of the political system by defections and employment of unethical means but the sole object was to prevent a particular political party from making a claim to form the government and such action was wholly illegal and mala fide."
The Supreme Court's failure to deal with the possibility of horse trading in the context of Bihar came on top of its controversial ruling in the JMM bribery case conferring immunity on MPs who took bribes and voted in the Lok Sabha to help defeat a no-confidence motion in 1993 against the Narasimha Rao government.
Senior advocate Anil Diwan said that the MPs who took bribes in the current context should be forced to make a confession on the transactions since they anyway enjoyed immunity against criminal proceedings. "Given the astronomical figures being bandied about, the tax authorities would be entitled to question the bribe taking MPs to trace the source of funding," Diwan added.
In a related reform, senior advocate P P Rao suggests that the Representation of the People Act should be amended to make provision for registering pre-poll alliances with the Election Commission in order to reduce the susceptibility of splinter groups to horse trading.
No comments:
Post a Comment