'It shows he is independent and wise'

Archana Masih and Syed Firdaus Ashraf in Bombay

K R Narayanan is being seen as the first Indian President to have taken a stance of such political importance. "This is surely an unprecedented move," says constitutional expert Nani Palkhivala.

Former Presidents have withheld bills -- Rajendra Prasad, India's first President was not in favour of the Hindu Code Bill; similarly, Zail Singh had his reservations about the Postal Bill -- but such an instance has never occurred before.

"The President has behaved in accordance with the Constitution and his conscience. Kalyan Singh has proved his majority and has the legal right to govern the state," says Bombay high court lawyer M A Rane.

Yet, the President is bound by the advice of the prime minister and his council of ministers. If the Cabinet decides to stick to its decision, the President has no choice but to give it his assent.

According to Article 74 of the Constitution: There shall be a council of ministers with the prime minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice:

Provided that the President may require the council of ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.

2. The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.

"To dismiss a majority government is not right," says another leading Delhi lawyer, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "As an elder statesman, the President has asked for a reconsideration of the decision."

The situation in UP, he said, in no way represented a breakdown in the law and order situation that justified the dismissal of the state government. "There was lawlessness and violence in the state assembly. This was not representative of the situation in the state. If this government is dismissed, then each time legislators want to bring down a government they can hammer each other up," the senior Supreme Court lawyer told Rediff On The NeT..

Supreme Court Bar Association president and eminent lawyer Kapil Sibal agreed. He told Rediff On The NeT, "Kalyan Singh had proved his majority in the assembly, and there was no way President's rule could have been imposed in the state."

What made the argument in favour of imposition weaker still, say lawyers, is that all reports agree that the ruling BJP did not begin the violence within the assembly precincts and that, rather, it was the Opposition parties -- the Congress, the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party -- that triggered it off. Therefore, for the same parties to turn around and argue a breakdown of law and order could not stand.

Argues Supreme Court lawyer Kamini Jaiswal, "The Opposition members indulged in violence, then walked out, after they realised that they were outnumbered. If they were not therefore present during the voting, that is not the BJP's fault."

Jaiswal welcomed Narayanan's decision to ask the Cabinet to reconsider its decision to impose President's rule in the state. "The President is not obliged to rubberstamp all Cabinet decisions, he can always ask the Cabinet to reconsider a decision. And I feel that by doing so in this case, he has hinted that the country cannot be run on the wishes of one old man, Sitaram Kesri."

Citing the example of Gujarat where there was violence in the assembly when Shankarsinh Vaghela faced a vote of confidence, Jaiswal said, "A similar situation arose in Gujarat, but the federal government did not take any action then. Its decision to do so in this case only shows that the federal government is targeting the BJP, and that is not good for democracy."

"Constitutionally," said Supreme Court lawyer Lalit Bhasin, "the governor has to consider all the pros and cons before writing his report to the federal government. He cannot just ask for the dismissal of the government because there was a breakdown in law and order. Instead, the governor could if he felt it was needed have given them one more chance to prove their majority, instead of sending his report recommending dismissal."

Only 90 days in office, the President's recommendation has been applauded. A recommendation, a divided United Front government could not ignore and was compelled to revoke later in the evening. "It shows that he is independent and wise. It even indicates that he can take tough decisions which will have an effect on the country," says Rane.

Another lawyer termed Narayanan as ''a breath of fresh air.'' "It is," he said, "with such checks and balances that democracy survives."