REWIND
New Delhi, 7 July
2022
NEITHER A
TRUMPET, NOR RUBBER STAMP
By Inder
Jit
(Released
on 28 February 1989)
The President, Mr. R.
Venkataraman, has let down the Constitution,the two Houses of Parliament and
the country in his inaugural address to the joint session of the Lok Sabha and
the Rajya Sabha last Tuesday. He has, no doubt, received a lot of flak for its
disappointing content and tone from the print media, including friendly
newspapers. The inaugural address has been criticized variously --- a package
of platitudes, something of a cock-a-hoop,or one that sounded like a Press
Information Bureau handout. But the people and most commentators have missed
out a basic point. The address sorely lacks what it is enjoined by the
Constitution to contain. In fact, it deviates gravely from the original purpose
of the address, the format envisaged by the founding fathers and
long-established convention. What is worse, the President has allowed himself
to be used by the Congress-I Government to effusively laud its rule over the
past four years and virtually to pass off to the people of India in this
election year as his address what is perhaps an advance version of the ruling
party’s poll manifesto.
The Constitution at
present provides under Article 86(1) for an address by the President to either
House of Parliament or both Houses assembled together. It also makes it
incumbent upon the President under Article 87 (1) to address both Houses
assembled together at the commencement of the first session after each general
election to the Lok Sabha and at the commencement of the first session of each
year and “Inform Parliament of the causes of its summons”. Interestingly, the
idea was not new and was inspired by the practice in Britain and by the
provision for address by the Head of State to the Central Legislature when it
was set up for the first time under the Government of India Act of 1919. The
Act provided for the address by the Governor-General in his discretion to
either House of the Central Legislature. Though there was no specific provision
in the Act for the Governor General to address both Houses assembled together,
in practice during the years 1921 to 1946, the Governor-General addressed the
Lower House separately as well as both the Houses assembled together on a
number of occasions.
Following
independence in 1947, the Government of India Act, as adapted, provided that
the Governor-General may address the DominionLegislature. In actuality,
however, the Governor-General did not address the Constituent Assembly
(Legislative) on any occasion between November 1947 and January 1950. The
situation changed when free India's Constitution came into force on January 26,
1950 and the President was required to address all the three sessions of the Provisional
Parliament held during the year. Article 87(1) of the Constitution, as originally
framed, required the President to address both Housesof Parliament assembled
together “at the commencement of every session”. Nehru and his colleagues then felt that to
have the President address both Houses as many as three times in a year involvedrepetition
and time of the House, apart from causing administrative difficulties. The
Constitution wasthen amended for the first time in 1951 to provide for the
President’s address only at the commencement of the first session after each general
election and of the first session each year.
Importantly, the
power conferred on the President by Article 87 of the Constitution corresponds
to the “Speech from the Throne” in Britain. The President’s speech, according
to Basu’sauthoritative commentary on the Constitution, is intended to be the
first pronouncement of the policy of the Government, both domestic and foreign,
after each general election and also at the commencement of the first session
of each year,which is usually, the Budget session. The British monarch still
delivers the “Speech from the Throne” for opening or proroguing the session of
Parliament even if he or she does not physically do so.(In the absence of the
Sovereign, the speech is read by the Lord Chancellor) The Speech from the
Throne is now used by the Government “to announce the causes of summons ---
ministerial policies,both external and internal,as also the legislative
programme.” What is more,the address is worded in a manner so as “not to
influence” the deliberations of Parliament or to interfere with them. Even an
allusion to the King’s personal wishes in debate is forbidden.
In sharp and distressing
contrast to the practice followed in Britain and during Nehru’s time,the
character and content of the President’s address has undergone a sea change. It
was originally intended to serve only a limited purpose: to inform Parliament
of the “causes of its summons.” This was made explicitly clear in the
Constitution and was to be done in two ways. First, by spelling out the
Government business expected to be takenup during the session and beyond ---
until the next year. Second,by indicating the future policy of the Governmenton
important issues. Yetthe address has degenerated into a lackluster review of
the past year and a blatant propaganda blast for the Government.In the
bargain,highly controversial statements are madetimeand again, provoking a
sharp and,at times, violent reaction. In fact,the President’s address to the
two Houses on February 21 touched a new low in flouting the Constitution. It
even spoke of the past four years and made all manner of claims for theGovernment,
including “unprecedented levels” ofeconomic achievement and growth.But it did
not precisely informParliament about the causes of its summons.
Astonishingly, the
President’s address even seeks to influence Parliament’s deliberations through
value-based judgmentand assertions in favour of the Governmentand its
policies.This is not to mention the faux pas in the unduly long address. The
opening para states: “I welcomeyou to this session of Parliament. I extend to
you my best wishes for the successful completion of the budgetary and
legislative business which you have before you.” The two Houses had no
budgetary business before them on February 21. I sat up again in the Press
gallery as I heard the President say in para four: “As we enter the final year of this
Parliament…” It is the final year of the Eight Lok Sabha, not of Parliament.The
Rajya Sabha is a continuing House.And,Parliament comprises not only the two
Houses but also the President. Further,the address asserts in para: “The voting
age has been reduced to 18.” Parliament has, no doubt, passed the required
legislation.But this has still to be approved by a majority of the States,
according to the Government’s own interpretation, and presented to the
Presidentfor his assent before it becomeslaw!
Sadly,mindless
deviation from the original format is not limited to the Centre. It extends to
the addresses by the Governors to the State Legislatures,where these have come
to cause even bigger trouble. The Governor’s address, according to the Page
Committee set up by the Speakers’ Conference in the sixties, is expected to
“enumerate with precision all the legislative and other important business that
the Government proposes to bring before the House during the year.” But this
seldom happens. Instead,the Governor’s address, prepared by the Government of
the day,has become increasingly political and controversial. Onone occasion,
the Governor of West Bengal in 1969 felt constrained to skip over two paras of
his address to the State Legislature as these attacked his own conduct earlier.
The Constitutional and political aspects of the matterwere debated in the Lok
Sabha.In his reply to the debate,the thenMinister of HomeAffairs stated that
the address of the Head of State “is a public declaration of policy that the
Government wants to follow in the coming year. The address is expected to look
into the future and the present. But the two paragraphs tried to interpret
history…”
Wheredo we gofrom
here? The President at the Centre and the Governorin the States needto ponder
and appropriately counsel their respective Governments in the matter. There is
no occasion for the Governmentto get the President or the Governors to play
Goebbels for themon the plea of reviewing the past year and projecting the
future. Such a review is wholly unnecessary, especially when it is invariably
made on Republic Day, barely a few weeks earlier. Someobservers feel that the
President (or the Governor) could perhaps deliver the address,objectively in
their personal capacity and reflect on the national scene as he sees it.But
this alternative is likely to lead to more trouble and turmoil. The President
(and the Governors) should be enabled to follow the healthy example of the
British Queen’s message to Parliament whichdoes nomore thaninform the Commons
of the causes of its summons and is a statement of fact. The address should
reflect precisionand planning as also the Government’s directionand
determination. The President and the Governors should not be involved in
politics.
It has been argued
that Mr.Venkataramanhad no choice but to read out the address prepared for
himby the Government. This is not true. ThePresident is not as helpless as is
made out. In fact,his oath of office empowers him “to preserve,protect and
defendthe Constitution.” In the case in point, the President could easily have
done two things.First,asked the Governmentto statethe cause of the summons of
the two Houses in accordance with Article 87 (1) of the Constitution.
Second,counseled the Government against reducing the address to a propaganda
blast for the Congress-I. (Surprisingly, the President hasidentified himself
totally with the Government in his address and spoken repeatedly in terms of
“We shall….” In the addresses prepared by the Nehru Government and deliveredby
Dr. RajendraPrasad, the President spoke invariably in terms of “My Government”.)
All in all,a President is neither a trumpet of the Government nor a rubber
stamp. He must firmly decline to do anything which compromises his prestige and
credibility or erodes his high office and the Constitution.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
5 July 2022
|