It is difficult to believe that the present caretaker government in New Delhi would wish to disqualify Mrs. Gandhi from contesting the forthcoming election and thereby throw the entire political-electoral process into confusion. But if the reports emanating from the capital regarding the proposed changes in the Representation of the People’s Act are accurate, this is precisely what it is planning to do. It is possible that these reports do not reflect the collective thinking of the cabinet and that those who are thinking in terms of disqualifying Mrs. Gandhi, will not have their way. It is also possible that the President will discourage the Prime Minister from going ahead with the proposed ordinance if the latter is so inclined. But it is equally conceivable that those in authority in New Delhi are looking for a short cut to their objective of keeping Mrs. Gandhi out of power. In that case it is necessary to say that the move is wrong from every point of view, including that of the interest of the alliance partners.
To begin with, it needs to be emphasized that the present government lacks the mandate to promulgate the ordinance. It is not representative of the people of India because it did not at any time secure the support of the majority in the now dissolved Lok Sabha. It would, in our view, have been wrong for the Desai government also to have pushed such an amendment through Parliament. But it would have had to be conceded that the Desai set-up had the mandate to amend the Representation of the People’s Act. The Janata had won an election by a comfortable majority and it enjoyed the confidence of the Lok Sabha. As it happened, it did not heed Mr. Jyotirmoy Basu’s proposal to disqualify Mrs. Gandhi and it did not try to prevent her from contesting the by-election in Chikmagalur. What has she done since to attract disqualification?
The issue of abuse of authority by Mrs. Gandhi and some of her former colleagues has been subject of investigation by various inquiry commissions on the one hand and of public debate on the other. The result has been different in the two cases. While the commissions have ruled against her, the public debate has gone in her favour in that significant sections of society, which had earlier been alienated from her, have moved back towards her. This poses a problem. But it cannot be resolved by repudiating the concept of popular sovereignty in favour of semi-judicial pronouncements. Ideally the political and the judicial processes should work in harmony. But when they don’t as in this case, the political process can be negated only at the risk of creating a serious threat to the system. This is what happened in June 1975. The danger now is not equally grave if only because the proposed move cannot by itself keep Mrs. Gandhi out of power. In fact, it can facilitate her task. For it can win her considerable sympathy and enable her to move about the country freely without having to bother about her own constituency. And if her party is returned in a majority, it can be depended upon to remove the disqualification and elect her as its leader. Thus on any reckoning Mr. Charan Singh and Mr. YB Chavan will have reason to regret a decision to disqualify her.
The Times of India, 12 September 1979