| Published on 13-07-2007 In National |
| Viewed 3530 times |
| The Relevance of Rashtrapati Bhavan |
|
|
Written by
Arvind P.Datar |
The recent unsavoury controversy over the antecedents of Pratibha Patil has once again focused the spotlight on the role of the President in our Constitution.
The Constituent Assembly , entrusted with the task of choosing a system of government for a democratic republic, had three models to chose from: (i) The American Presidential system; (ii) Westminster model of parliamentary democracy; (iii) Swiss type of elected executive.
After extensive debate, the Assembly chose the British model as the most suitable for Indian conditions. Making a comprehensive statement on November 4, 1948. Dr. Ambedkar pointed out that the American and Swiss system gave more stability but less responsibility; the British system, on the other hand, gave more responsibility but less stability. Sardar Patel and K. M. Munshi pointed out that Indian public life had largely drawn upon the traditions of British constitutional law and the provinces had been functioning on the British model. Thus, it was decided to adopt the British model.
At the same time, it was ironic that a democratic republic should have a President whose role was similar to that of the King of England. Justice Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable style, asked a question: "Is Rastrapati Bhavan an Indian Buckingham Palace or a half-way house between it and the White House"?
The answer to this question can be found in the speech of Dr. Ambedkar who pointed out that the title of the President did not mean that the President had any kind of power as exercised by the President of the United States. Beyond the identity of titles, there was nothing in common between the two Presidents; the Indian President occupied the same position as the King of the English Constitution. He was the head of State but did not rule the nation.
At the same time, the President is not a mere ceremonial or ornamental head. He has important constitutional duties to perform. As a general rule, the President cannot act independently but has to act in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. If a democratically elected Government wishes to pursue a policy of nationalization and State control, the President has no option but to sign such Parliamentary bills as are presented to him. The incumbent of Rastrapati Bhavan has an important role to play, particularly in these days of coalition politics coupled with unconcealed opportunism and complete lack of any principles.
According to Justice Krishna Iyer, the President can exercise independent power in three important situations:
(i) the choice of Prime Minister - restricted though this choice is by the paramount consideration that he should command a majority in the House;
(ii) the dismissal of a Government which has lost its majority in the House but refuses to quit office;
(iii) the dissolution of the House where an appeal to the country is necessitous, although in this area the Head of the State should avoid getting involved in politics and must be advised by his Prime Minister who will eventually take the responsibility for the step.
The President also has exclusive powers to determine the age of a Supreme Court or High Court judge under Article 217(3).
He also has a critical role to play in the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges and in the functioning of the Union Public Service Commission.
Although the President must give assent to any Bill that has been passed by the Parliament, he has the power to send it back for reconsideration. He can make important observations and comments, which may stimulate fresh debate in Parliament. However, if Parliament still chooses to enact the same law, the President has no choice but to give his assent.
Pandit Nehru remarked that the President though not having any real political power had to be "a person of great authority and dignity."
Sir B. N. Rau, who perhaps had a greater role to play in the drafting of the Constitution than even Dr. Ambedkar, remarked that the President should be more and more like the monarch in England, "eschewing legal power, standing outside the clash of parties and gaining in moral authority". He pointed out that the voice of reason is more readily heard when it can prevail but no longer coerce.
Justice Krishna Iyer in Samsher Singh's case observed : "The President in India is not at all a glorified cipher. He represents the majesty of the State, is at the apex, though only symbolically, and has rapport with the people and parties, being above politics. His vigilant presence makes for good government if only he uses, what Bagehot described as the right to be consulted, to warn and encourage….. there is no doubt that the imprint of his personality may chasten and correct the political government, although the actual exercise of the functions entrusted to him by law is in effect and in law carried on by his duly appointed mentors, i.e., the Prime Minister and his colleagues".
Dr. Ambedkar put it succinctly: "The President is the symbol of the nation".
Our Constitution never envisaged that light-weight politicians should be promoted as rubber-stamp Presidents. Like so many constitutional institutions, we have destroyed the grandeur of the Rashtrapati Bhavan for short-term political ends. Raj Bhavans have long been converted into parking areas for inconvenient politicians who have passed their prime but refuse to retire gracefully.
President Kalam exhibited sturdy independence on more than one occasion. He has perhaps paid the price for taking a critical and independent decision as to whether the office of the Prime Minister could be occupied by a person of foreign origin. In the matter of judicial appointments, he did question some controversial appointments.
It is truly shocking that the name of Shivraj Patil was suggested on the ground that he could be dispensed with from the Union Government as he had been an ineffective Home Minister! Unfortunately, the UPA and the Left Parties decided that only a person with a political background would be chosen to occupy Rastrapati Bhavan. This virtually guaranteed that the next President would have neither moral authority nor dignity. Unfortunately, there is not a single member – not one – in the present political establishment who comes even remotely near the stature of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan or Dr. Zakir Hussein.
In the end, if we degrade great institutions for petty political ends, we only have ourselves to blame. The arithmetic of the electoral college process guarantees Pratibha Patil's entry into the Rashtrapati Bhavan. We can only hope that she has the moral courage not to become another rubber-stamp President. |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
