GovernmentWhether Supreme Court was right in playing a role in handling the turbulent situation in Ayodhya around disputed structure during 1992? Is it appropriate for Central Government to wait for orders from apex court for taking necessary steps to prevent collapse of constitutional machinery on 6th December 1992? What can be done if the duly elected State Government breaches the promise to protect the constitution?
The Supreme Court was hearing various petitions on the highly controversial Ayodhya and issuing periodic orders through ‘continuous mandamus’ during 1991-92, Union Government was waiting for the orders of apex court for acting in Ayodhya, while State Government allowed karsevaks to advance, prevented police and machinery from interfering, and not deployed the armed forces sent by Center. In the wake of Justice Liberhan Commission Report, various constitutional issues including the role of Supreme Court are raised.
At around 1991 PV Narasimha Rao was leading the minority government at center, while Kalyan Singh was heading BJP government with absolute majority. How can PV Narasimha Rao, Prime Minister could have imposed President’s rule invoking Article 356, when apex court was hearing the matter? Former Law Secretary P Chandrasekhar Rao, who is currently the Judge (elected with highest votes among 175 member-states) International Tribunal on Law of Sea at Hamburg posed this question. In an extensive interview with Madabhushi Sridhar, the legal luminary PC Rao said that it was difficult for Supreme Court and the Union Government not to ignore UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh’s solemn promises (See Box 4) with categorical commitment to protect the Babri structure and that Karsevaks would not be allowed to enter its premises on fateful day of 6th December 1992. He emphatically said that blaming PV Narasimha Rao for not imposing President’s Rule, despite clear exoneration by Liberhan Commission was absolutely baseless.
As Liberhan report opened up the age-old controversy about Ayodhya- Babri, raised doubts about strict division of powers between the Executive and Judiciary and possible repetition of events affecting secular credentials of Indian polity. In his marathon report Liberhan was convinced with the contention of Late PV Narasimha Rao and he could not be found fault with for not imposing the President’s Rule prior to demolition of disputed structure (See Box 2). Liberhan’s list of 68 blame-worthy politicians does not include the name of former Prime Minister much to the displeasure of Congress party and Muslim leaders. P. Chandrasekhar Rao, Secretary Law, during 1988 – 1996 who served six Prime Ministers including Narasimha Rao for five years, gave a detailed account of Constitutional limitations of Narasimha Rao Government. He said that an unprecedented situation posing challenge to rule of law occurred because of Kalyansingh’s fragrant violation of commitments given to Supreme Court, National Integration Council and Union Government. (See box 4)
Options before Center
PC Rao recollecting his advice given in top level meetings in PMO and Ayodhya Cell, said that the Center had limited options. One- sending paramilitary forces to UP under Article 355 to help securing law and order and enforcing directions of Supreme Court, which was done. PV administration had stationed 195 companies around Ayodhya, so that they could attend to any eventuality within hours of directions. They were kept at the disposal of UP administration with due intimation. Instead of using them, Kalyan Singh objected to their presence, while BJP demanded their withdrawal.
Two- invoking Article 356 to dismiss the Kalyan Singh government and take over administration, which could have happened based on the Governor’s Report or any other information about break-down of Constitutional machinery. On 1st December, Governor B Satyanarayan Reddy gave a categorical advice not to impose President’s Rule as State Government was fully committed to secure the structure. Though lakhs of Karasevaks assembled they were peaceful and dismissal of BJP government would provoke large scale violence not only in UP but also in other states, the Governor reported (see Box 1). PC Rao was also stated, even the Intelligence Bureau reported similarly. Another very important factor that prevented the Union Administration from taking any step was the rejection of its application for appointing the center as the Receiver of Supreme Court to see that the orders of apex court were implemented. Instead of providing any role to Center in Ayodhya affairs, the Supreme Court chose to appoint its own ‘observer’ to directly report to and take instructions from Supreme Court, PC Rao stated. It is a paradox that observer was not even present when demolition went on. (Liberhan report also revealed that the ‘observer’ of Supreme Court could not be there at site as he was delayed in his effort bring his family members to watch the spectacle in Ayodhya). When asked why the Supreme Court did not agree to appoint center as its receiver, PC Rao said that appropriate authority to answer it would be judiciary and not he. However, he considered this as a significant development which did not allow central executive to act. He also said that there was every chance to review the decision to invoke article 356 if at all invoked, and reverse it attributing mala fides to PV Narasimha Rao. By that time Sarkaria Commission already gave its critical opposition to the ‘misuse of 356’ and the Supreme Court ascertained in Bommai case its authority to review Executive’s decision to impose of President’s rule and if found malafide, to reinstate the dismissed state government. Under these circumstances PV Narasimha Rao was totally helpless, he lamented. (PV referred to Sarkaria Commission’s remark that it was abuse of Article 356 in 1951 in Punjab and in 1973 in Andhra Pradesh just to settle internal problems of ruling party. It is a paradox that in 1973 the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi chose to dismiss her own party’s government in Andhra Pradesh, headed by PV Narasimha Rao. Perhaps, while referring to Sarkaria Commission before Liberhan, PV must be remembering how unceremoniously he was removed)
PC Rao said it was atrocious to allege that PV was conniving with communal forces and responsible for demolition of Babri structure, when Justice Liberhan brought out the fact that Kalyan Singh government deliberately misled every authority including apex court and used the police as ‘karsevaks’ in uniform with a preplanned scheme to demolish the structure. (See Box 5)
Role of Judiciary
Whether the continuous supervision of the judiciary would be appropriate in the scheme of the Constitution of India? Answering this question PC Rao said that our Constitution and the conventions denoted the strict separation of powers between the three Estates – executive, judiciary and legislature. It is the duty of executive to deal with what are essentially administrative functions such as law and order on the field. The Supreme Court is the highest authority to interpret the provisions of the Constitution it has to depend totally on the Executive to enforce its orders. It did not have any mechanism except to take solemn commitments from executive expecting them to be honoured. The fact that Supreme Court met within a few hours of demolition to its displeasure at the way the Kalyan Singh Government offended the authority of the highest judiciary and the Constitution in unprecedented manner, explains the limitations of the Judiciary (See Box 3). Ultimately, PC Rao explained, the Supreme Court could convict Kalyan Singh for contempt of court with a fine of Rs. 2000 and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of court on that day. When Kalyan Singh came out, he was given a hero’s reception, quipped PC Rao. This also shows that punishing Himalayan blunders like that of Kalyan singh for Contempt will have no impact at all.
PC Rao expressed surprise as the role of Supreme Court, in occupying the field, not accepting Center’s application for acting as Receiver for Supreme Court, appointing their own observer etc was not properly debated at any forum including media. However the question remains, whether it is proper for Executive begging for orders to deal with ground realities of practical tensions? If enemy wages a war at the battle, should the army wait for commands from Supreme Court?
Separating religion from politics
While Union Government constituted Ayodhya Cell specially to review happenings and Prime Minister Narasimha Rao was holding discussions with All India Babri Masjid Action Committee, Viswa Hindu Parishad and Dharmasamsad. It appeared that when they were close to agreement VHP suddenly called off the negotiations and Dharmasamsad fixed 6th December for Karseva. It would have been very convenient to center to get rid of an inconvenient government at the state, which happened earlier for more than 100 times, but, PC Rao said, Narasimha Rao never exploited situation for political reasons and was confined to legal considerations of Article 356.
In his assessment, PC Rao held PV Narasimha Rao in high esteem as a leader who never swerved from the path of Nehruvian ideology of secularism and as a Prime Minister he always wanted to act within the legal frame of Constitution, which he (PC Rao) was reviewing as Union Law Secretary. After taking over as Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao firmly believed in separation of religion from politics as he considered such a mix would be fatal to the fabric of secular nation under democratic governance. Narasimha Rao introduced Bills to amend the Constitution, Representation of People Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, etc to effectively separate the religion from politics. But, PC Rao said, he could not get through the bills owing to problems of minority coalition government. Later the bills went into a cold storage, PC Rao said. Incidentally one of the significant suggestions of Justice Liberhan Commission was to amend the law to penalize abuse of religion for political gains. Present UPA regime has quietly sent this suggestion for consideration of Law Commission.
Why did Liberhan examine important persons such as UP Governor or Union Law Secretary before ascertaining the various aspects of the problem? Commission also did not choose to call for Vajpayee, who was also listed as responsible for demolition. Another major doubt that this 17 year long trial and 1200 strong report left, is what exactly the individual involvement of the 68 blamed persons? Without ascertaining this aspect, how will it be possible for any government to initiate action? As Justice Liberhan did not study the role of Judiciary in handling this volatile situation, it is for the society to analyze whether it is appropriate and constitutional to leave such issues to be continuously monitored by Judiciary, which has no independent mechanism to get its orders executed and prevent the consequences of disobedience?
Box 1:
| Report of UP Governor B Satyanarayan Reddy
On 1st December 1992, ie, five days before the fateful day of 6th December 1992, Mr Satyanarayan Reddy, Governor of UP who was appointed by VP Singh, submitted a report to the union Government stating i) Many karsevaks reached Ayodhya but they were all peaceful. ii) State Government fully assured that it will protect and take adequate measures to protect the structure, iii) The Union Government should not dismiss or take any drastic action against the state government. iv) If such an action is taken, demolition might occur and far reaching consequences might take place not only in UP but through out the country, And thus any decision in haste should be avoided. |
Box 2
| PV Narasimha Rao before Liberhan Commission
Justice Liberhan in his report mentioned that he asked Mr. PV Narasimha Rao, on what basis he has taken such decision. Mr PV replied that he did not want to invoke 356 purely “on legal consideration that arise under article 356 of the Constitution”. Firstly, it would be incorrect to invoke 356 when Hon’ble Supreme Court was seized of the matter and gave directions appointing an observer taking upon itself the responsibility of monitoring the situation in Ayodhya. Secondly, in the light of the above, Mr P V Narasimha Rao chose not to invoke article 356 and take upon the Union Government a task that the Supreme Court set about to perform itself. Because of the Supreme Court’s effective intervention the option to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 was effectively foreclosed. Thus, Mr PV Narasimha Rao has taken a carefully calibrated decision, in view of the difficult situations, not to impose President’s Rule for the following reasons:
|
Box 3
| Kalyan Singh lets down the Supreme Court
On 26th November 1992, the Supreme Court also said that no assurances were forthcoming from the State Government regarding the safety of the Babri structure, and that the Supreme Court knew how to expect action from the state government and if necessary ‘exact’ action. After the demolition of Babri structure on 6th December 1992, the Supreme Court lamented and observed that:
|
Box 4
| The solemn Assurance of a CM
Assurance of CM to National Integration Council’s meeting on 2nd November 1991: “…I want to make it clear that I assure you that entire responsibility of the protection of that disputed structure is ours, we will be vigilant about the protection of that structure and have strengthened the arrangements for its protection. Nobody will be able to go there now…. Later this assurance was made part of record by the Supreme Court and this was also sent to Union Government. |
Box 5
| Police as Karasevaks in Uniform: Liberhan Report
In Para 91.3 Liberhan stated that Kalyan Singh repeatedly refused to utilize the services of paramilitary forces till after the demolition was complete. Instead, the Kalyan Singh government allowed specialized task forces for demolition to join the karasevaks, who had dress rehearsal also (99.5). The cadres, secure in the knowledge that they could not be molested, accosted or fired upon by the police, had a free hand in their assignment. The frantic calls made by various functionaries to Chief Minister for calling in the central paramilitary forces were resolutely dismissed by him. (99.6) State police and bureaucracy were not just helpless spectators but actively conniving and facilitating these events. (99.9) 135. 10. The bureaucratic executive started losing its independence for innumerable reasons while the political executive started undermining the bureaucratic executive’s importance, effectiveness, relevance and expertise. The political executive having become a past master, used the numbers of game of caste, religious etc, as well as the well known human weaknesses to arm twist the bureaucratic executive. |
Tweet this!
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
Subscribe by RSS
0 Comments
You can be the first one to leave a comment.