The tribulations for the UPA government seem to be growing with every passing day.
After the heat and dust generated by the Volcker report last year, the Supreme Court's scathing indictment of Buta Singh (and indirectly of the Centre) over the dissolution of the state assembly could deal a further blow to the government.
It was being called Bihar's judgement day and it took the apex court nearly four months to deliver the final verdict.
In its interim order of October 7, the court had termed the dissolution as unconstitutional. Going a step further, on January 24 it held Buta responsible for misleading the Council of Ministers by sending a report containing 'unascertained facts'.
"We are of the view that the action of the governor was a malafide exercise of power. Hence, the proclamation issued under Article 356, dissolving the Bihar assembly was illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary," a five-judge constitutional bench in a 3:2 majority verdict ruled.
Subversion of constitution
The bench said that the governor's report contained 'fanciful assumptions', which could be destructive to democracy.
"The whims and fancies of governors will open the floodgates of dissolution of assemblies. This will entail dangerous consequences, forcing the country to have another election whenever there was a fractured verdict," the bench observed.
Terming Buta's action as 'drastic and extreme', it held that the court cannot be a silent spectator to such 'subversion of the Constitution'.
The court felt that the Bihar Governor's action was clearly aimed at preventing the leader of the JD(U)-BJP alliance Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form the government.
Gospel truth
While Buta is shown to be the law-breaker, the role of the cabinet is also under the scanner as the council of ministers act on the basis of the governor's recommendations.
"In the facts and circumstances of this case, the governor may be the main player, but council of ministers should have verified facts stated in the report of the governor before hurriedly accepting it as a gospel truth," the judgement read by Chief Justice YK Sabharwal said.
The court reiterated the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission report regarding the appointment of governors.
According to it, only an eminent person free from political affiliation should be appointed to the constitutional post.
Reacting to the verdict, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the country has to accept the implications of the verdict. "Whatever the Supreme Court says the country has to accept it," he told reporters.
Under pressure
Following the severe indictment, Buta Singh stepped down from the post of governor after a salute at the Republic Day parade in Patna.
Referring to SC's criticism, Singh said he had sent two reports to President APJ Abdul Kalam on April 27 and May 21 only on the basis of "strong proof" of horse-trading.
"Injustice has been meted out to me. Out of sheer respect for the Supreme Court I have resigned," he said.
The Congress quite predictably, welcomed the move saying, "It is a matter of congratulations, support and good governance that within 48 hours of a 475-page Supreme Court judgement, democratic traditions and conventions have been followed and implemented in letter and spirit".
There is also a sense of relief within Congress circles as it has not been held directly responsible for the Bihar fiasco.
The party, however, admitted that the UPA government had erred in accepting Singh's report on dissolving the state assembly.
Armed with fresh ammunition to target the government, the BJP-led Opposition was quick to launch an offensive.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, L K Advani asserted that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was equally responsible for misleading the President on the issue.
"The judgment in totality suggests if the Governor has misled the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister as head of the Council of Ministers has misled the President in committing an unconstitutional act," said Advani.
Governors' role
More than anything else, the apex court's verdict has put the spotlight back on gubernatorial positions.
Maintaining that the governor is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office, the bench noted that the immunity conferred under Article 361 does not prevent the courts from scrutinising his actions.
Being appointees of the government of the day, the governors are generally seen to toe the Centre's line.
A national policy outlining common norms for appointment of governors could to some extent help in avoiding a repetition of another Bihar like situation.
