CONFIDENCE VOTE - NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT
The Constitution of India provides under Article 74/(163) that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister/(the Chief Minister) to aid and advise the President/(Governor) in exercise of his executive functions. The doubt that the Constitution of India provides for a Presidential form of Government [as in USA] was cleared by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who clarified that it is only the cabinet system or parliamentary democracy of representative Government as in U.K. is envisaged by the Constitution. That was endorsed by the Supreme Court in U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971) that the Constitution provides for Cabinet system of Government and not a presidential form of Government.
2. Though cabinet system of Government was established by the Constitution, the word ‘Party’ much less ‘Political Party’, did not find a place anywhere in the Constitution [till the present X Schedule was introduced]. Still Political Parties were in existence by sufferance and Governments were formed by Political Parties.
3. Under Art.74 , the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the Council of Ministers shall be appointed, on the advice of the Prime Minister, by the President and the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible for the House of the People (similar provisions are found in Art.163, relating to Chief Minister, Governor and Legislative Assembly). Nowhere in the constitution, it is stated that the President /(the Governor) shall appoint the Prime Minister/(Chief Minister) only if he commands the support of the majority members of the House of the People/(State Legislative Assembly). Normally, the President/(the Governor) appoints only a persons who can command a majority support in the House. But it may not always be possible for a single political party to have an absolute majority [though it was possible at times]. Of late, it has become a political necessity to seek the support of some other parties since very often no single political party gets majority of seats in the House. Such a house is popularly referred as “Hung House” or “Hung Assembly”. Under those circumstances, a few political parties may join together and form a majority group in the House.
4. If, no political party get a majority support from the members elected to the House, the House need not be dissolved. Voters need not be approached for repeated elections, till one single party gets a majority. Such a procedure is not warranted by the Constitution. A hung House can also exist and govern the country with the existing laws. Once the President appoints a Prime Minister (or Governor appoints the Chief Minister), thereafter, the President/(the Governor) is bound to exercise his executive functions only in accordance with the advice given by Council of Ministers. The President/(the Governor) cannot exercise the functions without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minster/(the Chief Minister). Art.74 was amended by 42nd amendment, which cleared all doubts. A few words were introduced in Art.74 making it emphatic that the President “shall in the exercise of his functions act in accordance with such advice”. Therefore, always there shall be a Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers to aid and advice the President.
5. The system underwent a change when President Sanjeeva Reddy appointed Charan Singh as Prime Minister ( in 1979 ) and simultaneously directed the Prime Minister to prove his majority in the House within three months. That was neither in accordance with any of the constitutional provisions, nor a Convention followed in England. There was no constitutional basis for that direction.
6. Subsequently, there were hung Houses when V.P. Singh was appointed as Prime Minister by President R. Venkataraman and when President Shankar Dayal Sharma appointed P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister. Similarly, when Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral were appointed as Prime Ministers, they too were not the leader of a single party which commanded majority in the House. Even a “minority” Government can rule the country, as long as any of the decision taken by the government was not rejected by Parliament/(State Legislative Assembly). That is, the minority Government has all the powers to run the administration. The Minority Government can aid and advice the President /(the Governor) and run the administration. Only when a new law, is to be made, the support of other members are necessary.
7. When no single party gets the majority of the seats in a House, the support of some other political parties are sought to constitute a majority in the House. President / Governor need to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the person whom he invites to form the government would be able to run the government. Only at that point of time, the President has the discretion to take a decision, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Once the Prime Minister is appointed, the President is bound to act only on the advice given by that Prime Minister. Only if the Speaker communicates to the President that the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House when a Bill was defeated.or a “No confidence Motion” was passed, the President is not bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. That is, the President cannot, after appointing the Prime Minister, question or doubt whether the Prime Minister command majority in the House.
8. Of late, it has become a practice, for some members of the Parliament / Assembly or some political party, to give a letter to the President / Governor, stating that they withdraw the support to the Prime Minister /(the Chief Minister) and also to demand the Prime Minister / Chief Minister to prove his / her majority in the House lest to resign as Prime Minister/Chief Minister. On such occasions, the President / (Governor) also direct the Prime Minister /(Chief Minister) to prove his majority in the House. No Prime Minister / (Chief Minister) had ever challenged such a direction though such a direction is not in accordance with the Constitution.
9. At present, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is running the Central Government. He had the support of a number of political parties. Now, a few political parties have given a letter to the President, stating that they withdrew the support to the Prime Minister. Not stopping there, they also requested the President to direct the Prime Minister to prove that he enjoys the majority in the House. Whether the President should accede to such a request or whether the President has got the right to so direct the Prime Minister is the point of current debate in the media and in the minds of the people.
10. The Times of India on 10.7.2008 has published a report that a constitutional lawyer Harish Salve had expressed the view that the President should call a “special session” of the Parliament at the earliest to clear all doubts. He also adds that conventions and precedents are important. Another constitutional expert, Shanti Bhusan has expressed the view that it would be “improper” for the President to ask the Prime Minister to seek trust vote in Parliament. According to him the President cannot tell the Government to seek a vote of confidence of the House; the President instead, should ask the opposition to bring a “No Confidence Motion” against the existing Government. He also stated that the direction of President K.R.Narayanan issued to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to seek the trust vote in 1999, was wrong. These two views reflect the two divergent views among the people.
11. The constitutional scheme, as stated above, is that the President is bound to act only on the “aid and advice” given by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. There is no alternative at all. The constitution does not confer any power on the President to issue any direction to the Prime Minister after appointing the Prime Minister. Only if the House of the People passes a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Prime Minister and that is communicated by the Speaker (of the House of the People), the President can think of not accepting the advice of the Prime Minister. The President/(the Governor) has not been conferred with any such power by the Constitution, to direct the Prime Minister/(Chief Minister) to seek a vote of confidence.
12. It is to be noted that, so far, the President has not directed the Prime Minister to seek a vote of confidence. That is only because there is no constitutional compulsion for the Prime Minister to seek vote of confidence. The Prime Minister need not seek the vote of confidence, i.e., he need not prove his majority in the House voluntarily, under any circumstance.
13. The convention referred above by Harish Salve does not have the support of the Constitution; but it is contrary to the express provisions. Therefore the convention created by Sanjeeva Reddy and followed by a few other Presidents need not be followed. Such a convention means that there can never be a minority Government. But, a democracy which follow cabinet system of Government, is bound to have minority Government, at some point of time. In England, instances of minority Government ruling the country are not rare. Similarly, even in India, minority Governments did exist in the past
14. Minority Government is a constitutional compulsion; it is the only option in a hung House. It is not a constitutional mandate that the Prime Minister must always have the support of the majority members of the House. Any demand or direction to prove the majority has no constitutional sanction; and seeking Confidence Vote voluntarily is not a constitutional necessity or obligation.
Conclusion
15. Therefore, the Prime Minister need not prove his majority in the House, seeking a Confidence Vote, because some political parties had withdrawn their support The political parties which had withdrawn the support cannot demand the Prime Minister to prove his majority in the House. That is seeking a confidence vote is not a constitutional requirement.
The Constitution of India provides under Article 74/(163) that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister/(the Chief Minister) to aid and advise the President/(Governor) in exercise of his executive functions. The doubt that the Constitution of India provides for a Presidential form of Government [as in USA] was cleared by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who clarified that it is only the cabinet system or parliamentary democracy of representative Government as in U.K. is envisaged by the Constitution. That was endorsed by the Supreme Court in U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971) that the Constitution provides for Cabinet system of Government and not a presidential form of Government.
2. Though cabinet system of Government was established by the Constitution, the word ‘Party’ much less ‘Political Party’, did not find a place anywhere in the Constitution [till the present X Schedule was introduced]. Still Political Parties were in existence by sufferance and Governments were formed by Political Parties.
3. Under Art.74 , the Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the Council of Ministers shall be appointed, on the advice of the Prime Minister, by the President and the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible for the House of the People (similar provisions are found in Art.163, relating to Chief Minister, Governor and Legislative Assembly). Nowhere in the constitution, it is stated that the President /(the Governor) shall appoint the Prime Minister/(Chief Minister) only if he commands the support of the majority members of the House of the People/(State Legislative Assembly). Normally, the President/(the Governor) appoints only a persons who can command a majority support in the House. But it may not always be possible for a single political party to have an absolute majority [though it was possible at times]. Of late, it has become a political necessity to seek the support of some other parties since very often no single political party gets majority of seats in the House. Such a house is popularly referred as “Hung House” or “Hung Assembly”. Under those circumstances, a few political parties may join together and form a majority group in the House.
4. If, no political party get a majority support from the members elected to the House, the House need not be dissolved. Voters need not be approached for repeated elections, till one single party gets a majority. Such a procedure is not warranted by the Constitution. A hung House can also exist and govern the country with the existing laws. Once the President appoints a Prime Minister (or Governor appoints the Chief Minister), thereafter, the President/(the Governor) is bound to exercise his executive functions only in accordance with the advice given by Council of Ministers. The President/(the Governor) cannot exercise the functions without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minster/(the Chief Minister). Art.74 was amended by 42nd amendment, which cleared all doubts. A few words were introduced in Art.74 making it emphatic that the President “shall in the exercise of his functions act in accordance with such advice”. Therefore, always there shall be a Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers to aid and advice the President.
5. The system underwent a change when President Sanjeeva Reddy appointed Charan Singh as Prime Minister ( in 1979 ) and simultaneously directed the Prime Minister to prove his majority in the House within three months. That was neither in accordance with any of the constitutional provisions, nor a Convention followed in England. There was no constitutional basis for that direction.
6. Subsequently, there were hung Houses when V.P. Singh was appointed as Prime Minister by President R. Venkataraman and when President Shankar Dayal Sharma appointed P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister. Similarly, when Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral were appointed as Prime Ministers, they too were not the leader of a single party which commanded majority in the House. Even a “minority” Government can rule the country, as long as any of the decision taken by the government was not rejected by Parliament/(State Legislative Assembly). That is, the minority Government has all the powers to run the administration. The Minority Government can aid and advice the President /(the Governor) and run the administration. Only when a new law, is to be made, the support of other members are necessary.
7. When no single party gets the majority of the seats in a House, the support of some other political parties are sought to constitute a majority in the House. President / Governor need to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the person whom he invites to form the government would be able to run the government. Only at that point of time, the President has the discretion to take a decision, without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Once the Prime Minister is appointed, the President is bound to act only on the advice given by that Prime Minister. Only if the Speaker communicates to the President that the Prime Minister had lost the confidence of the House when a Bill was defeated.or a “No confidence Motion” was passed, the President is not bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. That is, the President cannot, after appointing the Prime Minister, question or doubt whether the Prime Minister command majority in the House.
8. Of late, it has become a practice, for some members of the Parliament / Assembly or some political party, to give a letter to the President / Governor, stating that they withdraw the support to the Prime Minister /(the Chief Minister) and also to demand the Prime Minister / Chief Minister to prove his / her majority in the House lest to resign as Prime Minister/Chief Minister. On such occasions, the President / (Governor) also direct the Prime Minister /(Chief Minister) to prove his majority in the House. No Prime Minister / (Chief Minister) had ever challenged such a direction though such a direction is not in accordance with the Constitution.
9. At present, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is running the Central Government. He had the support of a number of political parties. Now, a few political parties have given a letter to the President, stating that they withdrew the support to the Prime Minister. Not stopping there, they also requested the President to direct the Prime Minister to prove that he enjoys the majority in the House. Whether the President should accede to such a request or whether the President has got the right to so direct the Prime Minister is the point of current debate in the media and in the minds of the people.
10. The Times of India on 10.7.2008 has published a report that a constitutional lawyer Harish Salve had expressed the view that the President should call a “special session” of the Parliament at the earliest to clear all doubts. He also adds that conventions and precedents are important. Another constitutional expert, Shanti Bhusan has expressed the view that it would be “improper” for the President to ask the Prime Minister to seek trust vote in Parliament. According to him the President cannot tell the Government to seek a vote of confidence of the House; the President instead, should ask the opposition to bring a “No Confidence Motion” against the existing Government. He also stated that the direction of President K.R.Narayanan issued to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, to seek the trust vote in 1999, was wrong. These two views reflect the two divergent views among the people.
11. The constitutional scheme, as stated above, is that the President is bound to act only on the “aid and advice” given by the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. There is no alternative at all. The constitution does not confer any power on the President to issue any direction to the Prime Minister after appointing the Prime Minister. Only if the House of the People passes a ‘No Confidence Motion’ against the Prime Minister and that is communicated by the Speaker (of the House of the People), the President can think of not accepting the advice of the Prime Minister. The President/(the Governor) has not been conferred with any such power by the Constitution, to direct the Prime Minister/(Chief Minister) to seek a vote of confidence.
12. It is to be noted that, so far, the President has not directed the Prime Minister to seek a vote of confidence. That is only because there is no constitutional compulsion for the Prime Minister to seek vote of confidence. The Prime Minister need not seek the vote of confidence, i.e., he need not prove his majority in the House voluntarily, under any circumstance.
13. The convention referred above by Harish Salve does not have the support of the Constitution; but it is contrary to the express provisions. Therefore the convention created by Sanjeeva Reddy and followed by a few other Presidents need not be followed. Such a convention means that there can never be a minority Government. But, a democracy which follow cabinet system of Government, is bound to have minority Government, at some point of time. In England, instances of minority Government ruling the country are not rare. Similarly, even in India, minority Governments did exist in the past
14. Minority Government is a constitutional compulsion; it is the only option in a hung House. It is not a constitutional mandate that the Prime Minister must always have the support of the majority members of the House. Any demand or direction to prove the majority has no constitutional sanction; and seeking Confidence Vote voluntarily is not a constitutional necessity or obligation.
Conclusion
15. Therefore, the Prime Minister need not prove his majority in the House, seeking a Confidence Vote, because some political parties had withdrawn their support The political parties which had withdrawn the support cannot demand the Prime Minister to prove his majority in the House. That is seeking a confidence vote is not a constitutional requirement.
1 comment:
Voice of the constitution unheard
Post a Comment