The Supreme Court ruling on the power struggle in Delhi and Maharashtra is like a slap on the central government

- Opinion - P. Chidambaram

- Blockade by Karnataka election results against attempt to centralize power

- Both the judgments of the Supreme interpreted the important provisions of the Constitution

It is said that the surname does not come alone. The week starting from 7th May was disastrous for BJP. On May 11, the Supreme Court delivered two judgments. Both the judgments were given by a five-judge constitution bench. Both the judgments interpreted important provisions of the Constitution. Both these judgments are being considered as a slap on the government. The result of the Karnataka assembly election was on 13th May.

In case of defeat, the government defends itself by remaining silent. Neither the Home Minister nor the former Law Minister gave any reaction to the Supreme Court verdict and Karnataka results.

Violation of the Constitution

Delhi's case was quite simple. In 2018, the Supreme Court interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution and said that administrative powers for all matters other than public order, police and land are in the hands of the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi has to follow the advice of the Delhi Cabinet. Doubts were looming over the services – who would control the government bureaucrats.

But after the May 11 verdict, the issue has become clear and it was announced that the ministers will have control over the services. Every lieutenant governor from 2014 should be held accountable for not following democratic and elected government system.

The second case was somewhat complicated because the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution had not been interpreted in an authoritative manner and there had been ambiguities in earlier judgments. Since the amendment of the Tenth Schedule in 2004, there has been no such thing as a 'split' in the Legislative Party. The Tenth Schedule can provide exceptional protection against the risk of defection only if either of the two conditions mentioned here is met. These two conditions are (1) if the parent political party merges with another political party and not less than two-thirds of the members of the legislature party have agreed to the merger (2) if the MLA/s have not accepted the merger and as a separate group in the legislature Have chosen to stay. If either of these two conditions are not met, the disaffected MLA continues to be a member of the original legislature party and has to obey the party whip.

Unconstitutional government

A situation arose in Maharashtra in which 16 MLAs under the leadership of Eknath Shinde defected from the Shiv Sena Legislature Party. On that day his original political party did not merge with another political party. (didn't even do it today). There was no exceptional situation as per Tenth Schedule at that time. Therefore, the dissidents had to act and vote as per the whip issued by Shiv Sena dated 21 June 2022.

By violating the whip, Shinde team joined hands with BJP. Without any reason the then Governor (according to the Supreme Court) instructed the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to seek a vote of confidence in the state assembly. Uddhav Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister (considering it ill-advised) without even facing a trust vote. The Governor immediately appointed Shinde as the Chief Minister and Shinde administered the oath of office to a mixed government of the Juth and the BJP.

The Supreme Court observed that a whip is a person appointed by a political party, (in this case the Shiv Sena) and held that the Governor had no compelling reason to call a meeting of the state assembly and order the chief minister to seek a vote of confidence. The Speaker has been ordered to take a decision on the petition for disqualification of 16 MLAs within a reasonable time.

I want to talk here on the conduct of constitutional duty bearers. It was clear from the Supreme Court's observation that the Governor had overstepped his authority and the Speaker had also not followed his rights. Both are responsible for sustaining the unconstitutional government in the state since June 2022.

Too much ambition

Operation Lotus in various states, bulldozer justice in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam, under-allocation of funds in non-BJP-ruled states, criminal charges against opposition leaders, threat of creation of Uniform Civil Code, unlimited taxing powers under GST Act and other measures behind There is only one ambitious goal and that is to bring the 140 crore people of the country under one roof of the central government. This is called centralization of power. Countries like China, Russia, Turkey are examples.

But two Supreme Court judgments have blocked efforts to move towards centralization. The Karnataka results have also reined in the twin-engine government. The best antidote to centralization is to keep our electoral and political system pluralistic. States should have different parties in power and at the center at least two parties should fight for power. Two battles have been won in the Supreme Court and one in Karnataka, but there is more to come.