The political scenario in Tamil Nadu is unfolding a novel drama. The Governor has the difficult task of dealing with an allegation that the resignation of the Chief Minister was obtained under duress. Similar is the allegation regarding the Chief Minister to have proposed the name of Sasikala to be the leader of the AIADMK legislature party. It may be noted that the CM has to have the majority support in the House.
Democracy is based on the concept of rule of majority through an elected form of government. The majority implies arithmetic and numbers. The question that arises is whether the “majority” concept is to be interpreted bereft of propriety and norms. The Governor is faced with a piquant situation. In the present case, the legislators have been confined to a holiday resort and are denied communication facilities with the outer world. Instead of being representatives of the people, they are turned into pawns on the political chessboard. It becomes doubtful whether their preferences are conditioned by free choice. A monolithic party like the AIADMK suddenly faced the unexpected demise of its unquestioned leader Jayalalithaa. That leader entrusted the present acting Chief Minister Paneerselvam with the post of CM on earlier occasions when the leader was not in a position to discharge the duties of CM. He had been loyal enough to be a faithful stop-gap CM. Probably for the first time, a Governor is faced with the problem of handling an intraparty tussle linked with the majority. In this unique situation, if the support falls below 117 or 118 and the rival claimant has outside support so as to claim a majority, a further awkward situation would arise.
These factors are independent of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the disproportionate asset case against Sasikala. The court verdict has been delivered. Sasikala stands disqualified from entering the Assembly. But as expected, she has fielded her nominee Palanaswami, present PWD Minister, who has already claimed to have been elected as the leader of the legislature party. We have now two claimants in the field for the CM post. The Governor is still faced with the unenviable task of either calling one of them, who by his assessment has the majority support or if circumstances justify, he could ask both of them to demonstrate their respective strengths in the House. A new drama is unfolding itself with new developments. This scenario throws up interesting indicators for monolithic parties with one-leader concept.
The longer the Governor takes to determine the majority support, the greater are the opportunities and facilities for the person who claims to have resigned under duress to demonstrate the veracity of this assertion. Having furnished the list of MlAs supporting her, Sasikala would earlier ordinarily have been invited to be sworn in as CM. But the Governor is confronted with the existing leader of the majority party holding the post of CM openly asserting that his resignation and subsequent steps were under “duress”. In the case of Jagadambika Pal in UP, the solution was found through secret voting in the House so as to ascertain the majority support of the rival candidates.
Unusual situations require newer forms of innovation. In the case of Bommai, the Supreme Court had indicated that House floor test is the most appropriate modality through which the majority support ought to be ascertained. But the situation is more complicated when the Governor finds that there are rival candidates from the party. Available reports indicate that the popular mood among the voter public is not in favour of a planted or superimposed CM, who manipulates through machinations to have the flock of MlAs under control. If Sasikala was to be invited to form a government, there could be problems if the Supreme Court verdict was not favourable to her. Sequence of events indicated that the Governor was inclined to await the court judgment. Such a step could be justified on the logic of avoiding another predicament within days, if not weeks.
There is every possibility of the Governor to cause the choice of the leader through a floor test by calling upon the rival claimants to seek support of the MlAs in the House. There are bound to be allegations of horse-trading in the interregnum and of attempts at reaching out for support from other parties in the House by the rival candidates. There has been a tendency to be critical of the conduct of the Governor in not mechanically acting upon by the list earlier furnished by Sasikala. But in the history of a democracy, a time comes when things boil over and principles of political propriety and ethics compel ascertaining the actual majority support.
The Governor is indeed faced with a difficult situation if he is to follow the principles of political propriety. In a given circumstantial situation, it would not be prudent for the Governor to ignore the demonstrative assertion regarding the resignation and subsequent events being “under duress”. It is sad to see the legislators being turned into a herd and being kept “captive” in a holiday resort. The Governor must also be aware of the expression of popular upsurge in the Jallikattu movement. A similar situation may arise in the process of choice of the CM. The Governor is entitled to ensure that there is a genuine and lasting majority. None of the legislators would want an election at this juncture when a dominant part of their tenure as legislators is yet to elapse. It is the youth of Tamilnadu which came out in large numbers and almost in a spontaneous manner for participating in the Jallikattu movement. One has to watch whether the youth power decides to express itself in a similar manner over the unfortunate vagaries of democracy presently being played out.
There had been a trend of argument that the Governor ought to act mechanically on the letter of support earlier furnished by Sasikala. But in the given unique situation, such an act would not be in conformity with the requirements for ensuring the success of democracy. It would not be fair to be over-critical of the Governor and expect him not to use his “discretion” in assessing the real situation and finding a way to identify the person who enjoys a majority support. The recommendations and conduct of the Governor have also been held to be amenable to judicial review. The objects of such a review are obviously to ascertain the realities of a situation by a floor test rather than mechanically act on asserted supports. As has been said by one of the jurists, the House is the right place to test the majority support on its floor rather than do the same in the Governor’s House. The present may be a fight for Chief Minister in Tamil Nadu, but ramifications of the same would have their impact in many other places where a one-leader ruling party, more so, a regional one, is faced with an internal crisis. This matter concerns every citizen-voter of India. But in this exercise, it has to be ensured that the real will and preference of the people is filtered out so as to resolve the internal turmoil of the majority party. The outcome of the present impasse will affect many future events in other States. The issues, therefore, cannot be treated to be confined to Tamil Nadu alone. It concerns the entire country as the largest democracy of the world.
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)