Read Editorial with D2G Ep – LXIV

In Read Editorial With D2G
January 28, 2016

WELCOME TO THE NEXT EPISODE OF READ EDITORIAL WITH D2G. IF YOU THINK READING EDITORIAL IS A BORING AND YOU CANT READ IT – YOU ARE WRONG. READ THE EDITORIAL NOW IN UNIQUE WAY – THE D2G’S WAY. READ IT AND FEEL THE CHANGE.

EPISODE – LXIV
TOPIC: Politics, impropriety and President’s Rule
BLOG: The Hindu
WRITER: Editorial
GENRE: Editorial

READ BEFORE YOU PROCEED:
D2G wears no responsibility of the views published here by the respective Author. This Editorial is used here for Study Purpose. Students are advised to learn the word-meaning, The Art of Writing Skills and understand the crux of this Editorial.

MEANINGS are given in BOLD and ITALIC

It is unfortunate that Arunachal Pradesh, a sensitive border State, should find itself in the throes (If you are in the throes of doing or experiencing something, especially something difficult, you are busy doing it or are deeply involved in it) of an artificial constitutional crisis. After seeking some clarifications from the Union government, President Pranab Mukherjee has approved the imposition of Central rule. The proclamation will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament and the validity of President’s Rule may be considered by the Supreme Court, but it is difficult not to discern (If you can discern something, you are aware of it and know what it is) a discredited political pattern behind the crisis that led to the current situation. The pattern involves dissidence (protest against official policy) within the ruling party, the opposition joining hands with the rebels, confusion over the likelihood of a floor test, and the Governor intervening in a partisan (Someone who is partisan strongly supports a particular person or cause, often without thinking carefully about the matter) manner. It is in similar circumstances that Article 356 of the Constitution has been misused in the past. And it was in such circumstances that the Supreme Court declared in 1994 that the only place for determining whether a Chief Minister has lost or retained majority is the floor of the House. Yet, the country is still witnessing the sad spectacle of partisan politics overshadowing (If an unpleasant event or feeling overshadows something, it makes it less happy or enjoyable) constitutional propriety. It is a poor commentary on the Narendra Modi government that instead of finding ways to facilitate a floor test it has imposed President’s Rule in the midst of an ongoing hearing before a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The Congress in the State is also to blame because, having obviously failed to address the dissidence in its camp against Chief Minister Nabam Tuki, it appears to be avoiding a floor test as it has not sought interim orders to that effect from the court.

Undoubtedly, there is a constitutional impasse (If people are in a difficult position in which it is impossible to make any progress, you can refer to the situation as an impasse) because six months have elapsed since the last time the Arunachal Pradesh Assembly met. That itself is a valid ground for Central rule. But it cannot be forgotten that events were manipulated in such a way that the divided legislature never got an opportunity to meet and test the government’s majority. The crisis was precipitated (If something precipitates an event or situation, usually a bad one, it causes it to happen suddenly or sooner than normal) when Governor J.P. Rajkhowa advanced the session scheduled for January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015, and fixed a motion seeking the removal of the Speaker as the first item on the agenda. In that controversial sitting at a makeshift venue, the Speaker was ‘removed’ and a ‘no-confidence motion’ adopted against the Chief Minister. The Gauhati High Court has ruled that the Governor was justified in advancing the session by acting on his own discretion if he had reason to believe that the Chief Minister and the Speaker were stalling a particular motion. The constitutional question of whether the Governor can summon the legislature on his own and whether he can send a message to the Assembly on what motion it should take up is now before the Supreme Court. An authoritative pronouncement is necessary on this question, but what must not be forgotten is that political processes followed should be rooted in norms of democracy, and not be at the mercy of any discretionary (Discretionary things are not fixed by rules but are decided on by people in authority, who consider each individual case) powers of constitutional functionaries.

***********************