A GOAN FARCE

 

 

“If even one legislator loses faith in me, I will immediately step down”, the first Speaker of Uttar Pradesh assembly Purshottam Das Tandon announced, hearing a dissenting voice in 1936. The dissenter reposed trust in the Speaker and Tandon did not resign. But, Tandon would not have imagined the level his successors could stoop to, to serve their political masters. Goa Assembly Speaker Pratap Singh Rane barred the two-member Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party (MGP) from voting for they had switched their loyalty, inviting provisions of anti-defection law. He also refused to accept resignation of another legislator Victoria Fernandez and barred her from voting. Constitution experts scoff at Goa developments. “Its malafide, unconstitutional and undemocratic action”, says former Lok Sabha Secretary General Subhash C. Kashyap. Anti-defection law applies only after a person has voted against the party whip and a petition has been filed for disqualification. “You can’t take action against a person in anticipation of cross-voting”, adds Kashyap.

The Speaker’s post was created to moderate debates and to announce decision of voting in the House. But, in smaller and politically volatile assemblies like Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Jharkhand, Speakers have lost their neutrality and have been behaving as members of the ruling party. Often, the ruling parties need their favours, more than the Governors, to sustain the governments. Governors are bound by Supreme Court’s judgment in the Bommai Case which necessitates a test of strength on floor of the Assembly. But, Speakers’ decision - be it the Keshav Singh Case of UP in 1964 or Manipur’s H. Borobabu’s Case in 1993 - have so far been non-judiciable.

The then U.P. Assembly Speaker Kesari Nath Tripathi sat for almost three years on the BSP’s petition to disqualify its MLAs who had crossed over to Mulayam Singh’s party in 2004. The Manipur Assembly Speaker H. Borobabu Singh not only refused to implement Supreme Court’s verdict reversing his decisions, but also punished the Assembly secretary who tried to implement the verdict.

If Maharashtra Speaker Arunlal Gujrati was accused of unconstitionally disqualifying seven MLAs to ensure floor test victory to Democratic Front Government in June 2002, Jharkhand Speaker, Inder Singh Namdhari too was accused of adopting high-handed practices.

The only relief, presently, is possible from courts. Considering lengthy and complex legal procedures, normally the relief comes only after the Assembly has completed its term.

There still is hope if Centre accepts recommendations of the Constitutional Reforms Commission: A split should not be recognised, all defectors need to be disqualified and seek re-election and their vote should be invalidated in a trial of strength. A long haul indeed!