While the Congress (I) leadership is justified in opposing the proposed provision for referendum in the Constitution for amending its basic features, its reasons for it are shocking. In sum, Mrs. Gandhi is still not prepared to accept the self-evident propositions that the Constitution has a core which should not be touched and that there should be a limitation on the constituent powers of Parliament in this regard. Not only has she learnt nothing from the debacle of 1977 but also she does not mind confirming a lot of people in their apprehension that she would wish to repeat the old story if she was to return to office. It is possible for her or anyone else honestly to come to the conclusion that the parliamentary system can no longer throw up the kind of effective government the country needs and that it is necessary to go over to the French type presidential system, as was proposed by some influential individuals during the emergency, or at least to modify the present one sufficiently to establish clearly the supremacy of the executive over the legislature and the judiciary. But if that is her position, she must say so openly so that there can be a national debate on that issue and the people can make their choice.
On merit the stand of the Congress (I) cannot stand scrutiny. The Constitution has a core. Indeed, there cannot be a constitution without a core for the simple reason that every constitution must embody a political philosophy. In India’s case nothing could have established this point as clearly and forcefully as Mrs. Gandhi’s own attempt to distort the constitution out of shape through a series of amendments, particularly the notorious 42nd amendment, which she was able to push through what passed for Parliament during that dark period. Similarly, in the light of what happened in March 1977, it would be absurd for anyone to contend, as Mr. C.M. Stephen, leader of the Congress (I) party in the Lok Sabha, has done, that “Parliament is the people”. Parliament then had clearly forfeited the moral right to speak in the name of the people because it had lost its representative character. This is neither to deny that “Parliament is the people” is a necessary myth in a democracy nor to endorse the dangerous doctrine of recall, but to point out that since Parliament failed to protect the rights of the people during the emergency, it is only natural that those interested in the present preservation of civil liberties should be looking for additional safeguards. Referendum may not be a good safeguard. But the search for one is legitimate.
Mr. Stephen has also affirmed his party’s adherence to the concept that directive principles listed in the constitution should have precedence over the fundamental rights and its support for Article 31 (C) whereby not only Parliament but also a state legislature can adopt any law and put it beyond the Supreme Court’s powers of review merely by declaring that it is intended to implement the directive principles. This is truly extraordinary for the additional reason that the Congress (I) is being wholly insensitive to the possibility that the days of one-party dominance all over the country may well be over. In plain terms, it may be sowing seeds of trouble even for itself if it is ever re-elected to power at the centre and in all the states which is not inconceivable. All that apart, the country is passing through a turbulent period. As such it can do without certain kinds of controversies, two of these being the definition of the basic features of the Constitution and the laying down of the procedure for amending them. These issues can be put off to better times when it may be possible to evolve a consensus on them.