Ever since August 20 when Mr. Charan Singh failed to appear in the Lok Sabha to seek and secure a vote of confidence we have held that he was a caretaker prime minister and his government a caretaker government. We have also held that while he and his council of ministers were charged with the task of running the day-to-day administration of the country and therefore entitled to take decisions which were necessary to fulfil that obligation, they could not initiate and settle matters with long-term implications and consequences. Indeed, we have expressed the view that the President owed it to himself and the country to discourage and, if necessary, hold up ordinances falling in the latter category. We have been aware that the Constitution does not provide for a caretaker prime minister and government. But we have felt that the present situation is an extraordinary one in that the framers of the Constitution had failed to envisage a government which has not enjoyed the confidence of the Lok Sabha even for a single day and yet continues to be in office for almost six months, and that as such it could not either be discussed or dealt with in terms of the letter of the Constitution. Mr. Justice Mukherji, of the Calcutta High Court, has now upheld this view. He has held that Mr. Charan Singh’s is a caretaker government and that the President “is not obliged to accept the advice of Mr. Singh and his council of ministers tendered to him except for day-to-day administration”.
This is not a final judicial interpretation of the Constitution as it stands. The Supreme Court will pronounce on it at some stage. Meanwhile the judgment is binding on both the President and the cabinet. In plain terms it means that if it is, indeed, true, as has been reported, that Mr. Charan Singh is planning to revive his proposal to make reservations for the so-called backward castes in Central services and to bring it before the council of ministers on Thursday, he is under a constitutional obligation to retrace his step. If he does not heed Mr. Justice Mukherji’s unequivocal judgment, his cabinet colleagues, specially those belonging to the Congress (U), should refuse to go along with him. For those who claim to be inheritors of the Gandhi-Nehru tradition of nation-building cannot be party to a decision which is bound to further divide an already badly fragmented society and disrupt the administration. If they, too, fail the nation, which is not unlikely in the context of the present unprincipled scramble for votes, the President must not hesitate to do his duty by the country. He must turn down the proposed ordinance. Mr. Justice Mukherji has interpreted the Constitution and so long as his interpretation is not superseded, the President can honour his oath to protect the Constitution only by implementing the judgment.
The Times of India, 13 February 1979