2024-03-30 09:47:29
Six days have passed since Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested, but he has not yet resigned from the post. Meanwhile, Delhi High Court has also refused to grant him interim relief from arrest. This is the reason why demands are now being raised to dismiss his government.
New Delhi: There is an uproar over Arvind Kejriwal, arrested on charges of Delhi liquor scam, not leaving the post of Chief Minister. Now questions are also being asked to the Central Government as to why it is not imposing President’s rule in Delhi? In response to this, the BJP which is in power at the Center is citing the decision of the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai case. On the other hand, those questioning the BJP are accusing it that the party is afraid that the dismissal of the Kejriwal government might create sympathy for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the minds of the common people. They say that if Delhi is going through a constitutional crisis, the central government cannot remain a mute spectator. Breaking the tradition, CM Arvind Kejriwal’s insistence on running the government from ED custody is also being debated in news channels. In a similar program, a round of arguments took place between BJP’s Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Tiwari and former journalist and former AAP leader Ashutosh. Amidst the arguments of both, we will also know what was the order of the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai case, citing which BJP is justifying not dismissing the Kejriwal government.
Know the two-sided arguments on President’s rule
In a TV debate, Ashutosh accused both BJP and AAP of making fun of constitutional decorum. He said that Kejriwal not resigning from the post of CM, on top of that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi not taking any step, then what else is it if not a joke with the Constitution. Ashutosh says that after going to jail, Arvind Kejriwal has become incapable of taking any decision, hence he cannot run the government. In such a situation, it is the constitutional responsibility of the Lieutenant Governor (VK Saxena) to tell the House through the Speaker of the Assembly that since Arvind Kejriwal has now become incompetent as the Chief Minister, you should elect a new leader of the House. If the Assembly does not elect its new leader, then the next responsibility of the LG is to make the Central Government aware that since the Delhi Assembly is not ready to elect a new leader, a situation of constitutional crisis has arisen in the state, for the solution of which President’s rule is required. Should be installed.
BJP spokesperson cited Bommai case
On this Sudhanshu Trivedi said that how can the LG intervene when the Assembly is in session? Keep in mind that the Delhi Assembly is always in session. He further cited the Supreme Court order in the SR Bommai case. He said, ‘There is a clear order of the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai case that whether any government has the right to exist or not can be decided only on the floor of the House. It is also written in it that this cannot be a matter of personal opinion of any person, even if that person is a Governor or President.
He further said, ‘There is also an example of this. The Uttar Pradesh Assembly was in session on October 22, 1997. Our opposition parties went and gave a memorandum to the then Governor Romesh Bhandari that Mulayam Singh Yadav’s government had lost majority and it should be removed with immediate effect. When the Governor dismissed the government, the Supreme Court canceled the Governor’s decision. The Supreme Court had given its order on the basis of the decision of SR Bommai case.
To this Ashutosh replied, ‘It is true that the Governor does not have the right to decide whether the present government has the majority or not. But here it is a matter of constitutional crisis. If a constitutional crisis arises, the Governor (LG in the case of Delhi) has full authority to decide whether a constitutional crisis has arisen or not.
So will Kejriwal run the government from jail itself, what does the law say, know in details
What is SR Bommai case, know
Well, let us know what is SR Bommai case and what decision was given by the Supreme Court in this case. It is about the year 1989. The Congress government at the Center imposed President’s rule and dismissed the Janata Dal-led SR Bommai government in Karnataka. The then Governor P. Venkata Subbaiah said that 19 MLAs gave him a letter of withdrawal of support from the government. For this reason he recommended the Central Government to impose President’s rule in the state. He said that the Bommai government did not have the majority, hence its continuation in office became unconstitutional. On the other hand, no other political party was in a position to form the government.
On the other hand, out of the 19 MLAs who had allegedly withdrawn support from the Bommai government, 7 took a U-turn complaining that their signatures on those letters were wrongly taken. SR Bommai then moved the Karnataka High Court, which rejected his challenge against the Centre. Bommai challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court and the apex court constituted a bench of nine judges. The same bench interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution to define the limits of the proclamation of President’s rule. Article 356 contains provisions ‘in case of failure of the constitutional machinery in the States’, including the provision for imposition of President’s rule.
Will Arvind Kejriwal be able to give competition to BJP from jail? Understand the strength of Aam Aadmi Party’s claim.
That order of Supreme Court in Bommai case
Although all nine judges unanimously upheld the provision, the court ruled that the President’s decision would be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court unanimously held that a proclamation of President’s rule on the grounds of being illegal, malicious, influenced by external considerations, abuse of power or fraud can be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court said in its decision that ‘the Governor did not consult Chief Minister Bommai before submitting his report to the President.’
The Supreme Court decision also made parliamentary approval necessary for imposing President’s rule. The President can exercise his power only after the proclamation of President’s rule is approved by both the Houses of Parliament. Until this happens the President can only suspend the State Legislature. If Parliament does not approve President’s rule within two months, the dismissed government will be automatically reinstated.
Justice Jeevan Reddy wrote in his opinion, ‘The fact that our Constitution has given more power to the States than to the Centre, does not mean that the States are merely a part of the Centre. The Center cannot tamper with the powers of the states. News website Indian Express, quoting Alok Prasanna Kumar Research, senior resident fellow at Law Karnataka, reported that there has been a huge decline in the incidents of imposition of President’s rule after the Bommai verdict. President’s rule was imposed 100 times between January 1950 and March 1994, or an average of 2.5 times annually. But after the Supreme Court’s decision in the SR Bommai case in 1994, President’s rule was imposed only 29 times between 1995 and 2021, or an average of a little more than once a year. In 2016, the Supreme Court had reinstated the governments in Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh citing the same decision in recent cases challenging President’s rule.
Kejriwal broke tradition and created a big debate
Actually, all kinds of things are being said about Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal not resigning from the post. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) had long ago claimed to have conducted a survey among the people of Delhi and is now saying that the people are supreme in democracy, hence as per their wishes, Kejriwal will run the government from jail itself. You also say that it is not said anywhere in the Constitution that the government cannot be run from jail. Therefore, if Arvind Kejriwal remains the Chief Minister even after his arrest, then there is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in it.
However, his opponents, including BJP, say that the leaders of a party which was formed with the slogan of political correctness are today giving such importance to morality, it is beyond imagination. Those who say this are citing other past Chief Ministers, including the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, who was recently arrested and jailed on corruption charges, who had resigned from the post before going to jail. The argument is that it is a matter of morality and political tradition rather than rules and regulations.