One day in the saddle does not count for much, but not if you are Harish Rawat. In one day as chief minister of Uttarakhand he cleared 11 schemes and held two cabinet meets. It’s a lot for a day and he’ll probably go down in history as the only chief minister who worked so hard for a day. But that is not the issue here.
Uttarakhand is a small state, but it is about 15 times larger than Goa and it is in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. There was a time when Goa was famous or infamous for splits and defections, which used to happen more as the rule than the exception. Between 1987 and 2000, Goans had a tough time keeping pace with political happenings or remembering the names of chief ministers that came and went at regular intervals that rarely crossed one year. Now it’s the turn of Uttarakhand.
For the Congress party in the state, trouble started when nine of its MLAs went over to the opposition, thus reducing the ruling party to a minority. In such cases, as demonstrated by Goa time and again, the rule is to disqualify the MLAs who jump ship and reduce the Opposition’s advantage. Every ruling party has employed this tactic in Goa. The Speaker of the Uttarakhand Assembly followed the script written by Goan Speakers and the Centre promptly clamped President’s rule in the state.
The matter would have remained in suspended animation if not for a ‘bolt from the blue’ judgement from the state’s high court overturning President’s rule and restoring the Rawat government. A day later the Supreme Court stayed the order of the high court till April 27 and allowed the floor test on April 29. In the meantime the nine Congress MLAs who were disqualified have knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of their disqualification.
The last time something similar happened in Goa was in February 2005 when the Manohar Parrikar government was brought down in dramatic fashion. Then, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker resigned in order to retain a majority, which was a first for Goa and the country. Uttarakhand’s record might not be as colourful as Goa’s but it now faces a crisis that was routine between 1987 and 2000.
Ever since the anti-defection law was tightened Goan legislators fell in line and the state has witnessed political stability since June 2005. The crisis in Uttarakhand has shifted the focus to defection, role played by the Speaker, the Governor, the Centre and the limitations of the anti-defection law.
What has made the situation unusual is the speedy intervention of the high court. It’s quick decision on President’s rule pushed both the State and the Centre towards quick resolution of the crisis. In the normal course the judicial system takes months if not years to resolve Constitutional issues, usually much after the crisis has blown away and past the life time of the Assembly and has a bearing only on future events.
Article 356 of the Constitution is to be used sparingly and not to bring down democratically elected governments in states. The final authority to judge if this article was misused by the Centre is the Supreme Court, but a shadow of suspicion hangs over the Centre because it had the most to gain by imposing President’s rule. The challenge now, is how to restore constitutional order without giving undue advantage to either the ruling party in Uttarakhand or the Centre.
