The case for the President’s decision to dissolve the Lok Sabha is clear. On the basis of the discussions he has held with the leaders of various parties he is convinced that none of them is in a position to provide the country a reasonably stable government. Since he signed the proclamation within minutes of his meeting with Mr. Charan Singh, it may also not be unfair to infer that he had been influenced to whatever extent by the recommendation of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. If this is in fact the case, this raises an important constitutional issue, in view of Mr. Charan Singh’s failure to secure a vote of confidence from the Lok Sabha, his right to advise the President to dissolve the lower house has been hotly contested and not by the aggrieved Janata party alone, indeed, a number of leading constitutional experts have held that Mr. Charan Singh is not entitled to advise the President in this regard. But the alternative proposition, too, is open to question. Whatever view one takes of the spirit of the Constitution, there is nothing in its letter which makes a distinction between a Prime Minister who enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha and one who does not. Nor does the letter of the Constitution permit the President to disregard the advice of the Prime Minister whatever the measure of support for him in the Lok Sabha.
Mrs. Gandhi had the Constitution amended during the emergency with the specific intention of placing it beyond the slightest doubt that the President was bound by the advice of the Prime Minister. The Janata party and government felt that this provision could enable a strong Prime Minister to stage a “constitutional” coup a la the proclamation of the emergency on June 26, 1975. They, therefore, pushed through another amendment which gave the President the discretion to send back to the Cabinet for review recommendations by the Prime Minister. This was obviously intended to avoid a repetition of what happened on the night of June 25, 1975, when Mrs Gandhi advised the then head of state to proclaim a state of emergency without securing in advance the approval of the Cabinet for this proposal. In the present case Mr. Charan Singh had acted with the unanimous support of his Cabinet colleagues and thus met the requirement of the letter of the law. The President could still send his recommendation back to the Cabinet for reconsideration if he was so inclined. But he has not been, presumably because most party leaders other than those of the Janata have reinforced Mr. Charan Singh’s plea. Since under the Constitution as it stands he was under no obligation to refer back the issue to the Cabinet, he cannot be accused of failure to abide by the fundamental law of the land.
Thus whatever might have been the President’s decision, it would have raised an important constitutional issue. This can be settled, if at all, by a decision of the Supreme Court by a respectable majority. We cannot settle it. Nor in our opinion can the Janata party by moving a motion of impeachment against the President in the Rajya Sabha. Indeed, it seems to us that neither those who framed the Constitution nor those who have amended it twice in this particular regard anticipated the kind of situation Mr. Sanjiva Reddy has had to cope with and that it will have to be amended again whenever it is possible to provide for such contingencies in future. For us therefore the important issue is whether the President is justified in reaching the conclusion he has, viz, that no political party in the Lok Sabha was in a position to give the country a stable government and therefore denying the leader of the Janata, Mr. Jagjivan Ram, an opportunity to try and form such a government.
On the face of it, it is difficult to find fault with Mr. Reddy’s conclusion. With the notable exception of the Janata, most party leaders who claim to enjoy the support of a clear majority of Lok Sabha members have gone to him and advised him to dissolve the Lok Sabha. But are all these leaders in a position to speak for their members? Mr. YB Chavan is certainly not so entitled. A number of the Congress (S) MPs have decided to leave the party. Many of them have been gravitating towards Mr Jagjivan Ram. Though as a partner in the Charan Singh ministry, the AIADMK was party to his recommendation in favour of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, it is said to have been having second thoughts. One agency message has quoted its leaders as promising support to Mr. Ram in case he was invited to form the government. It was with great difficulty that the Akalis had finally decided to support the Janata (S)-Congress (S) coalition and it is not inconceivable that they would have veered round to supporting Mr. Ram. It is possible that despite all this Mr. Ram may not have been able to form a stable government. But should he have been given an opportunity to make an attempt or not? We feel he should have been. If, like Mr. Charan Singh, he, too, had failed to win a vote of confidence, the President would have been in a position to claim that he had exhausted all possibilities open to him. His decision to dissolve the Lok Sabha would in that event not have stirred up the bitter controversy we are witnessing now.
Those who take a moralist view of recent developments have been appalled at the ease with which so many MPs have “defected” from their parties. The Janata leaders have shared this view and have condemned Mr. Charan Singh and his Janata (S) colleagues on this score. We do not know whether the President, too, shares the widespread distaste for “defections” and whether this is one reason why he has not invited Mr. Ram to try and form a government. But we have no hesitation in saying that this is a rather simplistic approach in view of the revolutionary changes that are taking place in our society and that we cannot expect to produce and sustain a stable party system for quite some time, Mr Charan Singh, for example, represents a major social force in north India and his personal ambitions have to be viewed in the context of the aroused aspirations of the peasantry. And if the Congress (S) is threatening to disintegrate, there are good reasons for it. The dissidents are not just men who have failed to get into the government.
Implicit in the President’s action is the assumption that the mid-term poll will give a clear and lasting majority to one of the main parties. This assumption may well turn out to be correct in view of Mrs. Gandhi’s personal appeal throughout the country and her unshakeable grip on her party. But if it does not, will Mr. Reddy order another election early next year? And if Mrs. Gandhi was not around, could he have made the assumption he apparently has? We are pointing this out because we feel that once again we may be ignoring the basic realities of a fragmented society in ferment and taking a short-sighted view of the problems confronting us.
The President’s decision leaves Mr. Charan Singh in the office of Prime Minister despite his failure to face the Lok Sabha and secure the necessary mandate from it. By any reckoning this is an unhappy situation. If for no other reason, the President should have given Mr. Ram a chance to try his luck. In case he had also failed to win a vote of confidence and had to be kept as a caretaker Prime Minister, he would clearly have been more representative of the lower house than Mr. Singh is after the withdrawal of support to him by the Congress (I). We recognise that the choice has been extremely difficult for the in using the harsh language he has in respect of the head of state. But we are convinced that Mr. Reddy should have given Mr. Ram a chance to prove his claim especially after the latter had offered to forward to the former a list of his supporters in the Lok Sabha.
The Times of India, 23 August 1979