The Hindu : Opinion / Letters to the Editor : Presidential Reference

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Mar 12, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

Presidential Reference

Sir, — The decision of the leaders of almost all political parties that the Government should make a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court on the issue of separation of powers in view of the Court's direction to the Jharkhand pro tem Speaker is uncalled for. When persons holding constitutional office act in an unprincipled manner, the judiciary is the only source of reprieve. Do not the parliamentarians know that the fine divide has been systematically damaged by the questionable practices of the parties and the legislators?

M.V. Nayudu,
Hyderabad

* * *

Sir, — The issue has stirred a hornets' nest. The obvious provocation is the threat perception of the legislators vis-à-vis the judiciary's forcible entry into what is essentially regarded as their exclusive domain. But what is at stake is the relationship that binds the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.

M. Siva Ram Prasad,
Visakhapatnam, A.P.

* * *

Sir, — What is disquieting in the Jharkhand episode is not the implication for relations among the constitutional institutions (Editorial "Tempering vigilance with restraint," March 11) but the fact that constitutional norms have been blatantly breached despite a similar judicial intervention in 1998. If those responsible for upholding the Constitution do not inspire confidence, the judiciary will necessarily have to provide the correctives.

The attempt by the leaders of political parties to defend the indefensible by claiming immunity under the principle of legislative supremacy smacks of superciliousness.

M. Vijaya,
Chennai

* * *

Sir, — Although the Supreme Court's direction is a clear breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, it is the need of the hour. When capriciousness rules the legislature and the office of the Governor, the Court has the moral obligation of restoring the rule of law.

T. Karthikeyan,
Madurai, T.N.

* * *

Sir, — Politicians have systematically undermined institutions and democratic conventions. Instead of feeling outraged, the political parties should do an honest introspection.

Ratish Nair,
Thiruvananthapuram

* * *

Sir, — The Supreme Court's direction to the pro tem Speaker of the Jharkhand Assembly to advance the confidence vote and record the proceedings amounts to the court assuming a role it is not expected to perform under the Constitution. It militates against the principle of separation of powers. While the judiciary has the power of review in a parliamentary democracy, it is Parliament that is supreme.

Naveen Marrapu,
Hyderabad

* * *

Sir, — The Court has performed the role of an umpire. When non-political constitutional authorities do not function as mandated, an outside agency (in this case, the court) has to intervene. Democracy cannot be hijacked in the name of the Constitution.

Poovathinthodiyil Raveendran,
Miyagino-Ku, Sendai

* * *

Sir, — The Constitution no doubt envisages separation of powers as a basic principle. But the founding fathers hoped that each constitutional institution would uphold the principles. The manner and the undue haste with which the Governor of Jharkhand installed the Shibu Soren Government is an onslaught on the democratic polity calling for a correction. The time has come for politicians to remind themselves of the highest democratic traditions that the country has stood for.

N.R. Bhaskar,
Bangalore

* * *

Sir, — Instead of cribbing about the judiciary's encroachment on legislative business, Parliament should discuss the root causes of the same. When Governors behave in a blatantly partisan manner, instead of remaining neutral, the situation calls for judicial activism.

B.V. Rao,
Bangalore

* * *

Sir, — Parliamentarians are agitated over the overarching power of the judiciary and justifiably so. It is heartening to note that our legislators are alert to any infringement of their functions. But unfortunately, the executive and the legislature have been rendered defunct because of narrow party interests prevailing over well-established democratic norms.

Kamala Venkataraman,
Srirangam, T.N.

* * *

Sir, — When constitutional functionaries dominate the headlines for the wrong reasons, and an aggrieved party pleads for justice, the country's apex court is bound to discharge its duty.

M.K.D. Prasada Rao,
Ghaziabad, U.P.

* * *

Sir, — The article "Involving constitutional offices in partisan politics" (March 11) is one-sided. Instead of pouring his ire on the office of President, the Supreme Court, the NDA, the media, etc., the writer should ponder over why the UPA has, in the recent days and weeks, suffered unprecedented loss of face and erosion of public sympathy.

B.V. Shenoy,
Bangalore

* * *

Sir, — The article gives the impression that the NDA is responsible for whatever happened in Jharkhand. It is a more dramatic, and less scientific, news analysis.

V. Arvind,
Kumbakonam, T.N.

* * *

Sir, — The analysis holds the NDA responsible for sucking the office of President into partisan politics. Even if one were to accept all that the author says for argument's sake, it does not absolve the Congress and its partisan Governor. It was they who forced the BJP to act in the way it did. Was it the BJP's fault that it emerged the single largest coalition and yet was denied invitation to form the government? As for the fuss over the President's invitation (and not summons) to the Governor, such hair-splitting does no good. The President did not invite the Governor for exchanging pleasantries.

Vinoo Ramakrishnan,
New Jersey

* * *

Sir, — The article misses the whole point. The point is Governor Syed Sibtey Razi did act in a partisan manner. He also claimed to have personally interviewed the five Independent MLAs whose support was claimed by the NDA.

Balaji Raghavan,
Boston, U.S.

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

RULING FRONT TROUBLES

CHINA'S ANTI-SECESSION LAW

The draft patent law

No gain without pain

Presidential Reference

One million mark