The Hindu : Congress reiterates demand for President's rule

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 25, 2002

National

National

Congress reiterates demand for President's rule

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI SEPT. 24. The Congress today maintained that Article 174 (1) of the Constitution (that there shall not be a gap of more than six months between two Assembly sessions) could not be mandatory.

Continuing his submissions before a five-Judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice, B.N. Kirpal, hearing the three-point Presidential reference, senior counsel for the party, Kapil Sibal, said the fact that Article 174 (1) had been suspended for six years in Jammu and Kashmir and five years in Punjab through a Constitutional amendment, demonstrated that this Article was not mandatory.

Mr. Sibal also told the Bench, which included Justice V.N. Khare, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arijit Pasayat, that if there was a conflict between Article 174 and 324, Article 174 should yield to Article 324.

He refuted the contention of the Solicitor-General, Harish Salve, that Article 324 was subject to a law made by Parliament under Article 327. He said if a law framed under Article 327 infringed upon the powers of the Election Commission and diluted its authority, such a law would fall foul of the Constitution. He further said that the plenary powers of the Commission could not be destroyed through a Parliamentary legislation as that would be contrary to the basic structure of the Constitution, viz. to hold free and fair and timely elections.

Mr. Sibal said the Commission's stand was that imposition of President rule in Gujarat was perfectly valid.

He described the Commission's order as a bold one which "did all of us proud for upholding the basic tenets of the Constitution'' and said that under the law, the Commission was to hold elections within six months after the dissolution of the Assembly.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision that the reference would be decided dehors the Gujarat situation, he said his party's stand was that "it is our contention that the order of the Commission has arisen only because of the extraordinary situation prevailing in Gujarat and whatever is stated in the Commission's order flows from what happened in the State. Any attempt to answer the reference dehors Gujarat would not arise from the order of the Commission," he said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National