Topic - Lessons from Uttarakhand
Former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat’s victory in the floor test was a foregone conclusion [पूर्वचिंतित परिणाम] after the Supreme Court barred nine dissident [मतभेद करनेवाला]Congress legislators from participating in the confidence vote. The votes of 27 remaining loyalists [वफादार] and a six-member bloc have seen him through. The result, which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, brings an end to the Bharatiya Janata Party’s political misadventure in exploiting the dissidence[मतभेद] within the Congress and attempting to install a government either run or backed by defectors.
Ever since the government led by it hastily [जल्दी से] imposed President’s Rule on the eve of a floor test scheduled in March, it has been unable to convince the judiciary of the justification for doing so. Two legal principles stood in the way of its plan: the bar on defection [दल-बदली] and the primacy of the floor test in determining a government’s majority. Whatever be the right of legislators to disagree with their leadership, it is limited by the rule against defection, as the law stands at present. In Uttarakhand, of course, the situation was complicated by the fact that a clear majority in the State Assembly — made up of BJP and rebel Congress MLAs — had pressed for a division of votes in writing in advance of the Appropriation Bill being taken up. While there is no escaping the fact that Mr. Rawat had lost his majority in the House, one lesson from the development is that one piece of impropriety (remaining in office by the use of the Speaker’s disqualification powers) does not justify another piece of possible illegality (the imposition of President’s Rule after attempts at toppling a government were stalled).
Ever since the government led by it hastily [जल्दी से] imposed President’s Rule on the eve of a floor test scheduled in March, it has been unable to convince the judiciary of the justification for doing so. Two legal principles stood in the way of its plan: the bar on defection [दल-बदली] and the primacy of the floor test in determining a government’s majority. Whatever be the right of legislators to disagree with their leadership, it is limited by the rule against defection, as the law stands at present. In Uttarakhand, of course, the situation was complicated by the fact that a clear majority in the State Assembly — made up of BJP and rebel Congress MLAs — had pressed for a division of votes in writing in advance of the Appropriation Bill being taken up. While there is no escaping the fact that Mr. Rawat had lost his majority in the House, one lesson from the development is that one piece of impropriety (remaining in office by the use of the Speaker’s disqualification powers) does not justify another piece of possible illegality (the imposition of President’s Rule after attempts at toppling a government were stalled).
As for Mr. Rawat, he will still have to face possible prosecution if the CBI decides to press ahead with its probe into a ‘sting operation’ that showed him offering bribes to some MLAs for their support. The legal challenge to his reinstatement [पुनः स्थापन] is also by no means over, with the Supreme Court still to take a view on whether the disqualification of the rebel Congress MLAs was valid. At a larger level, the Uttarakhand crisis raises important questions that are relevant[प्रासंगिक] to the functioning of democracy: should Chief Ministers who have lost their majority take recourse[सहारा] to the anti-defection law to stay in power? Is disqualifying inconvenient MLAs an acceptable way of managing the majority of a government? On the flip side, should a few lawmakers, who constitute a fraction of a party’s strength in the legislature, be allowed to topple a regime [शासन] at the behest[आदेश] of the opposition? While the floor test rule to prove majority laid down by the Bommai judgment must remain, the time may have come to rethink the provisions that give Speakers untrammelled power to adjudicate[निर्णय करना] on the issue of defection, particularly when such rulings can have a direct bearing on a trust vote. Bommai insured State governments to a large extent against the Centre’s machinations, as the BJP has just rediscovered to its embarrassment. But the growing misuse of the anti-defection law by ruling parties across the political spectrum suggests that Assemblies need some insurance against scheming State governments as well.
Vocabulry :
foregone conclusion [पूर्वचिंतित परिणाम]-something in the future that is certain to happen or be true
- It was a foregone conclusion that he would take over the business after his father retired.
- Most people felt that the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion. [=they felt sure that the trial would end in a certain way]
dissident [मतभेद करनेवाला] -someone who strongly and publicly disagrees with and criticizes the government
- Many political dissidents were arrested.
loyalist [वफादार] - a person who is loyal to a political cause, government, or leader
a group of party loyalists [=people who are loyal members of a political party]
eve - the period of time just before an important event — used in the phrase on the eve of
- The students were nervous on the eve of their graduation.
toppling- to remove (a government or a leader) from power :overthrow
The rebels tried to topple the dictator.
reinstatement [पुनः स्थापन]- to put (someone) back in a job or position that had been taken away
- After his name was cleared, he was reinstated as committee chairperson.
- The company promised to reinstate [=rehire] the employees that had been laid off.
relevant[प्रासंगिक]- relating to a subject in an appropriate way
- a relevant [=pertinent] question
- The ideas and observations expressed in the book are still relevant today.
recourse[सहारा] -an opportunity or choice to use or do something in order to deal with a problem or situation
- His only recourse [=the only thing he can do] is to file a complaint with the management.
- She has no legal recourse against the magazine. [=there is no legal action she can take against the magazine]
- He had no recourse to legal help. [=he was not able to get legal help]
- The dispute was settled without recourse to law.
regime [शासन] -a form of government
- a socialist/Communist/military regime
- : a particular government
- The new regime is sure to fall.
behest[आदेश]-at the behest of someone formal or at someone's behest
- : because of being asked or ordered by someone
- A special meeting will be held at the senator's behest.
adjudicate[निर्णय करना]-to make an official decision about who is right in a dispute
- The board will adjudicate claims made against teachers.
- The case was adjudicated in the state courts.
Read also : Daily Current Affairs