TEXT :
"A failure of constitutional machinery may occur in a number of ways. Factors which contribute to such a situation are diverse and imponderable. Even so, some instances of what does and what does not constitute a constitutional failure within the contemplation of this article may be grouped and discussed under the following heads:..."
"i) political crisis;
ii) internal subversion;
iii) physical breakdown; and
iv) non-compliance with constitutional directions of the Union Executive."
This is a classic case. It is a kind of textbook case of the President's Rule, which is not even a matter of controversy.
"If a Ministry resigns or is dismissed on loss of its majority support in the Assembly and no alternative Government commanding the confidence of the Assembly can be formed."
political crisis which amounts to a break down of the constitutional machinery
MR. SPEAKER: Motion moved:
"That this House approves the Proclamation issued by the President on the l0th February, l999 under article 356 of the Constitution in relation to the State of Goa."
The time allotted is two hours.
I was present physically hearing this hon. Home Minister Shri Advani as an Opposition leader during the tenure of the Congress Government in the Centre. The tone is different, the argument is different and the postures are different now. In those days, as an Opposition leader or as a leader of the BJP, the moment article 356 was used by the Congress Government in any State, the vigour, the vehemence, the anger and the argument used were totally different in finding fault with them. Not only that. Even on several aspects, on the moral aspect, on the legal aspect, on the constitutional aspect and on the matter of breakdown, even when there was a genuine reason for the Government to impose the President's rule using article 356, they used to make political capital out of it.
The Congress Government was always of the opinion that using article 356 for genuine reasons was correct. Today, simply because we are sitting in the Opposition, we do not want to speak in the same way as Shri Advani used to speak as a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
But as he explained, though every Member of Parliament or a Legislative Assembly would like to continue his five year term, in this particular case almost all the Members of the Legislature had expressed their desire for the dissolution of the Assembly. We agree.
The point here is why is this happening? Keeping this in mind, the Anti-Defection Bill was contemplated by Shri Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister in those days. It was only at the behest of Shri Rajiv Gandhi that it was introduced. We had discussed the Anti-Defection Bill in detail. We did find some lacunae in the Anti-Defection Bill in those days also. But we thought that by applying the Anti-Defection Bill over a period we would identify the lacunae and review the Anti-Defection Bill to avoid such incidents of changing of parties and changing of governments on personal considerations and personal benefits and party benefits leaving the national benefit and the benefit of the people going haywire.
While my party is not against utilising this article 356 in Goa, I do not find any reason why the same thing is applied in Bihar. He explained that the Rane Government and also the Faleiro Government were given enough opportunity to prove their majority by asking for a Special Session to be conducted, but the same thing is not applied in Bihar for convening a Special Session of the Assembly to prove the majority of the Chief Minister there.
The Chief Minister has got the courage to accept this, convene the Assembly and prove his majority also in the Assembly in spite of the best efforts of the Opposition parties to defeat him. In a democratic set-up, they may be elected in whatever manner but with the same rules and regulations formed by all of us. The Election Commission is watching the performance of different parties in the elections. With the Election Commission not finding any fault in the elections, when the legitimate legislators who are elected and who once again are found fault at the behest of the Central Government by way of the Governor, proved the majority, there was no justification for the hon. Home Minister to use his standards in a different way in different States as he himself said, `there cannot be one rule in one State and another rule in another State.' It cannot be applied because a particular party wants or does not want it in a particular State. There should not be two standards. Shri Advani, till before the BJP Government came to power at the Centre in Delhi, there was some opinion among the people throughout the country that you might be a different lot. But your behaviour in U.P, your attitude and the application of the same article, same Constitution, same guidelines and everything including the guidelines of Sarkaria Commission was totally different, and, it is already understood by the people of this country.
As a Member of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh, I know very well the basic facts of the BJP which is almost non-existent in Andhra Pradesh. But some people who are supporting Telugu Desam and some others who are supporting Congress are not happy with both the Congress and TDP as well. They have felt that why do we not try this time BJP though the BJP by itself has no base to win a maximum or even a considerable number of seats in Andhra Pradesh. So far, it has won four seats out of 42. It is because of your sermons, of your speech on the moral values, ethics, Constitution guidelines and all that, all these years, the same people thought that, maybe, you would do something else other than what Congress has done all these years. (Interruptions) What else to speak? Shall I speak as you want?
They have put some words to you in Andhra Pradesh. But, today in Andhra Pradesh, the same youngsters who have felt that you are a different lot are not with the BJP. Not even one per cent is with the BJP. They realise BJP is no party in ruling which can fit into the administration. They might be good at sitting as the Opposition party but certainly not good in administration and in ruling. That is the reason, why today in Andhra Pradesh, the BJP has gone back to... (Interruptions)
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
+vªÉIÉ VÉÒ, +É{É <xɺÉä EòʽþªÉä ÊEò ªÉ½þ Ê´É¹ÉªÉ {É®ú ¤ÉÉä±ÉäÆ*... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
SHRI K.S. RAO (MACHILIPATNAM): Let me complete. Let me formulate. They have already understood. (Interruptions) It has no use at all. In regard to Goa, the Congress Government is also of the opinion that the situation is very ripe where Article 356 has to be used, and it is used there. We are not against it. It is not that we are opposing that. But you should not apply the same thing for your political ends. The same thing what you have said was said by Shri Ambedkar. He said that it should not be misused for political ends. You are doing the same thing. What you are doing is different from what you have spoken. It is totally different then and now also, except that the tone is different, the argument is different.
What you are speaking today is totally different from what you have been speaking earlier. Not in this case but what you did in regard to Bihar is unconstitutional and unethical. It was not proper for you to think in the same way. Earlier, in similar situations when the Congress did the same thing, you just did not allow the House to proceed. You did the same thing. So, you should not find fault with the Congress party simply because it is now in the Opposition and you are the ruling party. Same yardstick, same values, same morals must apply irrespective of whether you are in the Opposition or you are ruling...(Interruptions).
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
MR. SPEAKER: No running commentary please.