Mr. Sanjiva Reddy is the first former President of India who has sought to justify his conduct in that august office. The reason is obvious. His decision in August 1979 to deny Mr. Jagjivan Ram an opportunity to form the government and to dissolve the Lok Sabha had attracted a storm of criticism the like of which no Indian president had ever faced before. But while his desire to vindicate himself in the eyes of his countrymen is understandable, he should have known that Mr. Jagjivan Ram would not keep silent in the face of his obviously partisan account of developments then. In the circumstances, discretion would have been the better part of valour. Mr. Reddy is, however, anything but discreet. It is, therefore, not particularly surprising that he should have raked up that sorry episode in the country’s constitutional history, provoked an unseemly controversy, invited the charges of telling lies and half-truths, and in the process brought down the prestige of the highest office in the land.
It is easily conceded that Mr. Reddy was faced with an unprecedented situation with the fall of the Desai government in that there was no obvious candidate for the office of Prime Minister, that is a leader assured of majority support in the Lok Sabha. Mr. Morarji Desai complicated the picture by refusing to resign and by sending to the then president a list of supporters which could not stand scrutiny. In the circumstances, a case of sorts can be made in favour of Mr. Reddy’s decision to invite Mr. YB Chavan, the leader of the opposition, to try and form a government. It was also legitimate for him to ask Mr. Charan Singh to head the government after Mr. Chavan had returned the mandate, since by then Mr. Singh was in a position to claim majority support in the Lok Sabha. But thereafter, Mr. Reddy will find it difficult to justify his decisions.
To begin with, Mr. Reddy allowed Mr. Singh three long weeks to demonstrate his majority in the Lok Sabha. He offered no explanation for showing such indulgence towards the Lok Dal leader. More important developments followed. Mrs. Gandhi withdrew her party’s support to Mr. Singh within days of his being sworn in as Prime Minister. On the appointed day (August 22), he failed to go to the Lok Sabha and seek a vote of confidence. He then resigned and advised Mr. Reddy to dissolve the lower house and order fresh elections. Apparently, by then, Mr. Reddy had made up his mind to dissolve the Lok Sabha. He went through the motions of consulting the party leaders. Like lemmings heading for the sea to drown themselves, many of them concurred with him. But he did not take Mr. Jagjivan Ram, leader of the Janata, which with 210 members was still the largest party in the Lok Sabha, into confidence. He invited Mr. Ram to meet him. Mr. Ram went to Rashtrapati Bhavan accompanied by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, president of the Janata party, and staked his claim to form the next government. Mr. Reddy did not tell them that he had decided to order fresh elections. Up to this point, Mr. Reddy’s account of events, as given through journalists whom he invited to dinner a few days before he laid down office, does not clash with Mr. Ram’s and Mr. Shekhar’s. He has not claimed that he consulted them as he had consulted other leaders. Beyond that, the two versions differ. But we can easily ignore those details as of little consequence. The agreed account raises several issues. Why was Mr. Reddy in such a hurry to dissolve the Lok Sabha? Why did he discriminate against Mr. Jagjivan Ram by not consulting him? Mr. Reddy has provoked these questions and should be willing to answer them, this time directly, in a signed document.
In the event, the Congress (I) under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership won a landslide victory in the January 1980 poll and thus ended the political uncertainty and confusion which the break-up of the Janata and the fall of the Desai ministry in the summer of 1979 had created. But was Mr. Reddy sure of such an outcome? Did he in fact want such an overwhelming verdict in Mrs. Gandhi’s favour? These questions are not irrelevant in view of the history of the relations between her and him. And what would he have done if the election had produced a Lok Sabha not very different from the one he had dissolved? Would he or would he not have invited the leader of the single largest party to head the government? Mr. Reddy has raised another constitutional issue by disclosing that he had recently advised Mrs. Gandhi to dissolve the Haryana vidhan sabha and that his advice was rejected by the Cabinet. Under which provisions of the Constitution did he give this “advice” and why did she feel obliged to refer it to the Cabinet?