Wider ramifications of Bihar crisis

Bihar’s political feud is getting bitter and complicated by the day, raising issues of import relating to law and the Constitution, rules and procedures in a legislature and norms of Centre-State relations. Adding to it is the High Court verdict of Wednesday that stayed Bihar Assembly Speaker’s acceptance of expulsion of incumbent Chief Minister Jitan Ram Manjhi by the Janata Dal (United).

The JD (U) faction that expelled Manjhi wants to bring back Nitish Kumar as the Chief Minister and is in a hurry to get a favourable order from Governor K N Tripathi, but the latter asked Manjhi to prove his majority support on the floor of the House on February 20.

It is fair and the only course because this is the Supreme Court verdict as well on the landmark verdict of 1994 in the S R Bommai versus Union of India case. No other headcount, in Raj Bhavan or any place other than the House, should be held as that would vitiate the relevant provisions in letter and spirit.

The multi-dimensional dispute has acquired wider significance in that after petitioning Tripathi, Kumar brought to New Delhi two plane loads of legislators to parade them before President Pranab Mukherjee. This brings into play the role of office of the President that in the past acted to correct politically motivated decisions of the Centre. Several cases of Uttar Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and other States demonstrate this.

Kumar moved to New Delhi within two days of meeting the Governor in what appears an attempt at putting pressure on the Governor. He thus betrayed a lack of confidence in the Governor. Tripathi, a former Bharatiya Janata Party functionary, is an appointee of the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with whom Kumar’s political vibes have been bad. As Bihar Chief Minister, Kumar had broken the alliance with the BJP to prevent that party from anointing Modi as the prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.

There may be substance in Kumar’s apprehensions since the BJP’s Bihar legislature party has openly supported Manjhi and his threat to ask the Governor to dissolve the House. As assembly elections are due later this year, the state could have a spell of Governor’s rule, something Kumar and his “Janata Parivar” colleagues would want to avoid at all costs.

Manjhi’s meeting with Modi, preceded by his announcement that he welcomed “help from anywhere” and that he sought ‘justice’ from the Centre, has completely queered the political pitch.

At the same time, Kumar is opposing holding of the year’s first session of the assembly and the opening address of the Governor. He fears that this would strengthen Manjhi and help the latter firm up the support of the BJP in a trial of strength. He appears to apprehend that after the Governor’s address, dissolution of the House may follow. Kumar’s fears may be valid, but his demanding postponement of the opening of the assembly session is not.

Going by past experiences of use and misuse – by whoever has wielded power at the Centre – of the Constitution’s Article 356 to impose what is popularly called the “President’s rule,” there is need for caution. All concerned should read up the 1988 report of Justice R S Sarkaria who headed a Commission on Centre-State relations and made wide-ranging recommendations. He clearly stated that this provision should be used “very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.”

This is also the time to ponder over another ‘misuse’ of power – again by whoever has governed at the Centre. This relates to the choice of individuals as Governors. It surfaced, yet again last year, when the Modi Government recalled, removed and transferred several Governors, most of them Congressmen, appointed by the UPA Government. And, emulating the UPA, the BJP appointed mostly BJP veterans.

The Sarkaria Commission’s wide-ranging recommendations, cautioning against appointing practising politicians and making appointments in consultation with the States have been largely ignored by successive governments.

By: Mahendra Ved