XI LOK SABHA DEBATES,   Session IV (Budget) 

Thursday, March 06, 1997 / Phalguna  15, 1918 (Saka)



Type of Debate: DECISION/OBSERVATION BY THE CHAIR

Title: Regarding admissibility of notices of motion under Rule 184 for recall 
of Governor of Uttar Pradesh.

TEXT :


MR. SPEAKER: Members may recall that I had given my  ruling  on  26  February,
1997,  on notices of motion under rule 184 for recall of the Governor of Uttar
Pradesh inter alia on the ground of deteriorating law and order  situation  in
Uttar Pradesh and had admitted a Short Duration Discussion under Rule 193.

	Shri  Jaswant Singh gave another notice of motion under rule 184 on 27
February, 1997 for recall of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on  the  ground  of
his   disagreement   with   the   Union  Home  Minister's  assessment  of  the
deteriorating law and order situation in Uttar  Pradesh.  Subsequently  on  28
February,  1997,  Shri  Atal  Bihari  Vajpayee  and  Shri  Pramod Mahajan gave
identical notices of motion under rule 184. Shri Murli Manohar Joshi also gave
a notice under rule 184 on 28 February, 1997 on similar grounds.

	These notices are  based  on  subsequent  developments  in  which  the
Governor  of  Uttar  Pradesh  is  reported to have stated publicly that he had
spoken to the Prime Minister who was quite satisfied with the  law  and  order
situation  in  Uttar  Pradesh.  It  has  also  been  reported  that  the Chief
Secretary, Uttar Pradesh has expressed shock and  surprise  on  the  newspaper
reports from New Delhi regarding the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh.
Reports  about  these developments were also referred to in the debates in the
House on 3 March, 1997.

	Shri Jaswant Singh while seeking to raise the issue on  the  floor  of
the  House  on  3  March, 1997 and earlier on 28 February, 1997 tried to drive
home the point that the disagreement between the Union Home Minister  and  the
Governor  of the State regarding the assessment of law and order situation was
a matter of grave concern which warranted a discussion under rule  184  rather
than a Short Duration Discussion under rule 193 as ruled by me on 26 February,
1997. Several other Members also expressed their views on the matter.


	The thrust of the arguments of the  Members,  who  demanded  that  the
Motion  under  Rule  184 be admitted, was that it is a very alarming situation
indeed where the Governor of a State, who has been described as "a part of the
State apparatus" and who has "a duty to report  to  the  Union",  is  publicly
contradicting and controverting the statement made by the Home Minister of the
Union  Government  on  the  floor  of the House. It was also emphasised in the
arguments that the Chief Secretary of the State, who acts directly  under  the
control  of  the Governor during the President's Rule in the State, has chosen
to express shock and surprise at the New Delhi reports regarding deteriorating
law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh. It was,  therefore,  argued  that  a
situation  had arisen in which the Governor had acted in a manner that impeded
the executive power of the Union Government, justifying a  discussion  on  the
conduct of the Governor.

	The  Members  who have opposed the admission of the notices under Rule
184, too felt that the issue was serious, and the  Government  should  clarify
its  stand  on  whether  or  not  it was satisfied with the situation in Uttar
Pradesh. They, however, have felt that a Short Duration Discussion on the  law
and  order  situation  in  Uttar Pradesh which had already been admitted would
serve the purpose. The hon. Minister of Parliamentary  Affairs,  Shri  Srikant
Jena, while intervening in the discussion on 3rd March, 1997 observed:

        
        "Perceptions  differ.  Sitting  here  in  Delhi,  I will have a
        perception about the law and order situation in  Uttar  Pradesh
        or in any other State. But the Governor has also got a right to
        submit   to  the  Government  of  India  about  his  perception
        regarding the  law  and  order  situation  obtaining  in  Uttar
        Pradesh."

	I  have  also since received a fax communication dated 5th March, 1997
from the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, in which he has stated as under :

        
        "The  law  and  order  situation  in  Uttar  Pradesh  is  under
        discussion in Parliament.    In  this  regard, I would  like to
        clarify that I hold the hon. Home Minister in high respect.  He
        is an outstanding  and  distinguished  Parliamentarian.    When
        asked  by the Press about the law and order situation, I merely
        revealed the statistics and information in my possession.  I am
        arranging to separately submit to you all facts in a  document.
        It  was  in  no  way to either contradict or criticise the hon.
        Home Minister.  There was no intention to show  any  disrespect
        to him.

        
        May  I  also  reiterate  that Parliament is the guardian of our
        Constitution.  I  am  totally  committed  to   abide   by   the
        Constitution  and  the decisions of Parliament. There can be no
        question of any disregard or disrespect to this august Body."

	I  have  very  closely  followed  the  discussions in the House on the
subject of the recall of Uttar Pradesh Governor  from  the  time  the  initial
notices  under  Rule 184 from the hon. Members in the Opposition were taken up
for consideration. I have also taken stock of the substance of  all  arguments
for  and  against the issue from the beginning. I have particularly taken note
of, and studied, the statements made by the Union Minister of Home Affairs and
the Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and the reported  observations  of
the  Governor  of Uttar Pradesh that the hon. Prime Minister is satisfied with
the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh, which have not  been  denied  so
far.  Having  done  this, I hold, with due respects to all concerned, that the
voice from the Treasury Benches has not been unanimous. Lack of this unanimity
of voice in the Treasury Benches in this regard is a matter  of  very  serious
concern, which is inconsistent with the principle of collective responsibility
of  the  Council  of Ministers to the House, as spelt out in Article 75 (3) of
the Constitution. This responsibility is joint and indivisible. The matter  is
especially  grave considering that Uttar Pradesh is the most populous State in
the country and law and order  situation  therein  has  implications  for  the
country as a whole.

	I have also noted the assurance given by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh
in  his  communication addressed to me that he holds the Home Minister in high
respect and that it was not his intention to contradict or criticise the  Home
Minister  when  he revealed to the Press the statistics and information in his
possession.


	The assurance given by the Governor is, no doubt, welcome but the fact
remains  that  he has not specifically, and in clear terms, denied the remarks
attributed to him in the Press reports about which a reference has  been  made
in the House.

On  the  contrary,  he has reiterated that he had merely revealed to the press
the statistics and information in his possession. Law and order  situation  is
not  a  mere  matter of statistics of number of lives lost, even as each human
life is valuable. The overall situation does not  detract  from  the  fact  of
emergence  of  discordant  notes  and  mixed  and  confusing  signals from the
Government side on the law and order situation in U.P.

	The Government and the House owe it to the people of  our  country  in
general,  and  of U.P in particular, to assess the situation through objective
discussion. A discussion on the law and order situation in the State is bound,
even if indirectly, to lead to a discussion on the  conduct  of  the  Governor
which, under the rules, cannot be allowed except on a substantive motion under
Rule 184.

	In the circumstances, after giving a careful thought to all aspects of
the matter, I admit the notices of motion under Rule 184.

								(ends)

 ------




[NEXT PAGE]