Pranab Mukherjee firm, Centre capitulates
In the constitutional scheme of things, the President of India has to go by the aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. But that does not prevent him (or her) from expressing displeasure at or disapproval of measures that the Government takes or proposes to take, once the matter is brought to his (or her) notice, if he (or she) in his (or her) wisdom concludes that those measures are suspect in terms of either propriety or law. President Pranab Mukherjee has, therefore, done the right thing in reportedly questioning the Congress-led UPA Government's move to legislate a couple of anti-corruption measures through the ordinance route barely three months before the regime is to demit office. Because both propriety and legality had been questioned, the Union Government was aware of the impediments, which is why senior Ministers Kapil Sibal and Sushil Kumar Shinde called on the President on Sunday ahead of a Cabinet meeting which was expected to deliberate upon and finalise the ordinances. Clearly, they failed to sell the idea to Mr Mukherjee who, having spent decades in active politics, could not have missed the Congress's gameplan. While the Government could have still gone ahead with approving the ordinances and sending them to the President, it would have been deeply embarrassed if the President had refused to sign them. It’s worth recalling that the President had held on to an earlier ordinance which sought to benefit tainted lawmakers; the regime eventually recalled that document. In the present case, the President would have also taken into consideration the strong letters of opposition he had received from Communist Party of India (M) general secretary Prakash Karat and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy to the Government's proposed move.
One does hope that the Government has finally abandoned its plan which, in any case, had little to do with its supposed commitment to fighting corruption (had the regime been indeed serious, it would not have waited until weeks before the lok Sabha election is due). The Centre was more concerned about honouring the wishes of party vice president Rahul Gandhi who was keen to be seen in the dying moments of the UPA regime as the torch-bearer of probity in public life.
Mr Mukherjee’s demonstration of spine has sadly been infrequent among Presidents of this country. On most occasions they have quietly concurred with Governments even when they ought to have questioned them. At times, as in the case of the promulgation of Emergency, the President, without a demur signed a document which compromised the Fundamental Rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, it is not without reason that the President has come to be referred to as the Government's rubber stamp. Mr Mukherjee, clearly, is not one. Nor was Mr APJ Abdul Kalam, when he took a strong position on the Office of Profit Bill after consulting legal experts. Instead of returning the Bill to the Prime Minister with his signature of approval, he directed it to the Speaker of the lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha Chairman for their comments. Yet another instance of the President taking an ‘independent' view is that of Giani Zail Singh. He simply sat on the Indian Post Office (Amendment) Bill which Parliament had passed towards the end of 1986. The Bill, among other things, provided for the interception of personal correspondence of citizens. While the President has to eventually give assent if a Bill he sends back is re-directed to him, the point is that the President can stand up against what he (or she) believes is inappropriate conduct of the Government.