A coincidence but not a parallel

By K. K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, MAY 11. It is ``This day that age'' with a difference. The crucial importance of the role that the Tamil Nadu Governor, Ms. Fathima Beevi, may have to perform brings to mind the conduct in 1952 of the then Governor of Madras, Mr. Sri Prakasa. Just a coincidence that the episode, nearly half a century old, is mentioned at some length by the Maharashtra Governor, Dr. P.C. Alexander, in his book, ``India in the New Millennium'', recently released by the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee. The author made a passing reference to it at the release function. The small audience waited with bated-breath whether he would deal - remotely and indirectly - with the present case. They were disappointed. Dr. Alexander could not have been that indiscreet.

The context of the two cases is different, there is no relation between the issues involved and, as such, there could be no parallel in the use of gubernatorial powers. In 1952, it was an out-and-out political matter - the Governor's anxiety to keep the communists out of power. In the use - or misuse of his discretion - he showed little regard for constitutional niceties. In the present case, it could be a blend of constitutional, legal and moral matters. Could someone who was not eligible to contest the Assembly poll be invited to become the Chief Minister; when he or she is chosen by the majority party as its leader?

The Constitution, as is known, does not provide for any guidelines to Governors - as a matter of fact, the proposal for an ``instrument of instructions'', mooted during the discussions of the Constituent Assembly, was given up.

Dr. Alexander sought to refresh the people's memory of the developments in these words: ``The most conspicuous case of constitutional impropriety by the Governor in the exercise of discretion to choose the Chief Minister took place in 1952 when the then Governor of Madras, Sri Prakasa, invited C. Rajagopalachari to form the Government in the State. The Congress party was reduced to a minority in the State Assembly and the Communist Party of India appeared to be in a better position to form the Government. But the Governor was convinced that a communist Government would not be in the best interest of the country and therefore the Communist Party should be kept out of office at all costs. The Governor was also convinced that if Rajagopalachari could be persuaded to lead the Congress party, he would be able to muster additional strength to form a Government without difficulty. But Rajagopalachari was not a member of either House of the legislature and was also unwilling to contest the election.

``The Governor nominated him to the legislative council and the Congress thereafter elected him as the leader of the party. The Governor as part of the plan in nominating Rajagopalachari to the council promptly invited him to form the Government, which he did. The nomination of a person to the legislative council without the advice of the Council of Ministers, and the selection of a nominated member as Chief Minister constituted by all standards a gross breach of constitutional propriety and morality. Equally so was the deliberate decision of the Governor to ignore the claims of the Communist Party of India to form the Government on the basis of his subjective views about national interests.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : New PCI formed