It is a victory for the Congress, but the Uttarakhand crisis has raised the larger issue of the role of the judiciary, executive and legislature
Uttarakhand’s Harish Rawat has been in and out of office ever since the Uttarakhand crisis broke out, when nine Congress MlAs turned rebels. Supporting the rebels, the Bharatiya Janata Party wanted to form a Government in the State. Both sides had claims and counter-claims to form a majority in the Himalayan State. However, the crisis got resolved on Wednesday when Rawat proved his majority under the Supreme Court-monitored floor test.
While on the one hand, this win will give a boost to the Congress ,which it is still struggling to find its feet, on the other , for Rawat, it is indeed a moral victory. Former Seva Dal chief Rawat has dug in his heel in Uttarakhand politics for about five decades and is one of the genuine grassroots politicians. He found his position shaky, and the crisis proved that he had miscalculated and underestimated his opponents.
Although Rawat is back, he will face many challenges. First, he has to keep his party united. Second, he has to face the Assembly election next year. Third, he has to keep his coalition partners — the Progressive Democratic Front, including the Bahujan Samaj Party satisfied. Fourth, he has to concentrate on administration. Rawat has to also face the CD sting operation probe.
It was only after a long wait that Rawat became the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand. In 2002, ND Tiwari overtook him and in 2012, Vijay Bahuguna led the Government. However, lady luck smiled on him when he came to power in 2013.
It is a victory for the Congress, but lessons must be learnt and the grand old party must treat its State units well. It has been clear that all was not well for the Uttarakhand Congress or else this crisis would not have erupted. Even former Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna, who led the revolt, had been waiting for an audience with Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi for two years. It was a similar story in Arunachal Pradesh too.
For the BJP, it is a setback and a warning not to act in haste. It is a message that Article 356 should be handled with utmost caution. There were expectations that there would be a full-stop after the Bommai judgement, which held that only a floor test should be the final test of any Government to survive or otherwise.
The Congress claimed that the Centre was in a hurry to destabilise Opposition-ruled States. The Uttarakhand election is just a few months away and the BJP’s claim to support the nine rebel Congress MlAs was only an act of fishing in troubled waters. The BJP had, perhaps, miscalculated. A few more months and Rawat would have faced anti-incumbency and rebellion within the party and collapsed.
Moreover, the BJP has to set its house in order. The party has three former Chief Ministers — BC Khanduri, BS Koshyari and Ramesh Pokhriyal — who want to lead the party in the next Assembly election.
For the judiciary, it was a step ahead to assert itself. A political crisis was turned into a legal and a constitutional anomaly, in the sense that the judiciary had to step into the domain of the legislature. The Centre had precipitated the problem by dismissing the State Government a day before the latter was to prove its majority in the Assembly.
The judiciary upheld the disqualification of the nine MlAs, upholding the law against horse-trading. This shows that the legislators were afraid of being disqualified and voted in accordance with the party whip.
For the first time, a Supreme Court-monitored floor test was held in an unprecedented manner. There are some who wonder whether such hand-holding was necessary and whether it went beyond what was envisaged by the framers of the Constitution, who made water-tight compartments for the judiciary, executive and legislature. A decade ago, when the apex court issued a notice to the then lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee after some MPs were expelled on charges of bribery, he sent it back without replying to it on the ground that the courts had no jurisdiction.
The BJP is demanding that the role of the Speaker in the State should also be addressed. The landmark Bommai judgement has established that the judiciary can examine President’s Rule and a majority can be established only on the floor of the House. All these are bigger questions arising out of the Uttarakhand crisis. It is time to set up another constitutional review commission to look at these and related ticklish questions.