Jethmalani sees no conflict with President

By Harish Khare

NEW DELHI, JAN. 28. Insisting that he was speaking for the Government, the Union Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, today asserted that there were no differences of opinion between the President and the Prime Minister over the question of ``review'' of the Constitution. He said the Government would appoint a review panel and it could announce the names of the ``review commission'' within the next 10 days.

Wanting to put an end to what he called ``an unseemly controversy'' created by media reports on Thursday's function in the Central Hall of Parliament, the Law Minister told newspersons here this morning that ``my reading of the President's speech is that he has approved of the process of keeping the Constitution under review and making changes where necessary''.

``There is nothing sinister'' about the Vajpayee Government wanting the Constitution to be reviewed by a ``panel of experts'', argued Mr. Jethmalani. He reassured that it was an ``innocent act'' and that the review was not intended to change the ``basic features'' of the Constitution.

It appears that Mr. Jethmalani was asked by the Prime Minister to explain the Government's position and to rubbish the suggestion that there were serious differences between the head of the Republic and the head of the Government. The Minister appealed: ``The Government trusts that this controversy will not again be resurrected and the fictitious conflict between the President and the Prime Minister will find no mention in the media.''

However, as a good lawyer, Mr. Jethmalani agreed with the Mr. Narayanan only to register the Government's disagreement with the burden of the President's remarks. His written statement says: ``Of course, the President has rightly emphasised that we cannot blame the Constitution for the ills that afflict us or for our failures and shortcomings. Better men at the helm of affairs could have produced better results even without changing the Constitution. The President is absolutely right that no review can recommend tinkering with the basic features. Those who constitute the present Government have fully and unreservedly accepted the validity of the Keshavanand doctrine.''

Mr. Jethmalani also disagreed with the view that the President was opposed to the idea of reviewing the Constitution simply to produce ``stability''.

He said the Congress Government in 1973 had found the Supreme Court judgment - a ``revolutionary constitutional doctrine'' - in the Keshavanand Bharati case ``inconvenient and irksome'' and had tried to use the office of the then Chief Justice, who, according to Mr. Jethmalani, ``was bent on mischief'' to overturn that judgment.

Mr. Jethmalani declared that the Constitution did not mean the President had to be ``a rubber stamp'', and that he was ``glad'' Mr. Narayanan was ``applying his mind'' before signing Government recommendations and papers. He also disagreed with the view that the President was withholding consent to the judicial appointments suggested by the Government.

Nonetheless, Mr. Jethmalani was quite willing to argue why the Constitution needed to be ``reviewed''. To begin with, according to him, the Supreme Court's notions of ``misguided secularism'', as the basis for invocation of Article 356, needed to be ``reviewed''; moreover, the States were demanding greater fiscal powers, including the right to borrow in the international market. The Constitution would need to be amended if the ``women's empowerment'' was to become a law; but, Mr. Jethmalani reserved his most cogent argument for the review of the whole process of ``appointment, transferring and removal'' of judges.

Speaking for himself, he noted that there could be three grounds for overhauling parts of the Constitution. First, an altogether different situation than envisaged at the time of framing of the Constitution. Second, if a section of the Constitution was being interpreted or misused for ``public mischief''; in the very first year, the Constitution had to be amended to give effect to agrarian reforms. Third, if part of the philosophy of the Constitution has been abandoned by the people; by way of example, he pointed out that the ``so-called socialism'' had been abandoned.

To persistent queries on whether the ``review'' panel would find ``secularisms'' also abandoned by the people, Mr. Jethmalani said, ``no''. But not being the one to quit while ahead, he nevertheless went on to define ``true sense of secularism''.

However, there was a realistic note in Mr. Jethmalani's defence of ``review'' idea. ``We do not have a two- thirds majority in either House; none of the recommendations can be carried out without the cooperation of the other parties, certainly not without that of the largest Opposition party.''

`Like a health check-up'

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI, JAN. 28. The Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, has defended the Vajpayee Government's proposal to set up a Commission to review the Constitution saying it was a commitment the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) had made to the people in its manifesto.

Speaking after inaugurating an exhibition `We, the People of India' at the National Archives here today, he said ``We were given a mandate to rule. It is not related to the numbers in Parliament. It is a proper way that the commitment given by the NDA to the people is honoured. We had said that the period of 50 years of independent rule under the present Constitution was an appropriate occasion to look at the Constitution.''

Referring to the Prime Minister's speech at the Central Hall of Parliament, Mr. Advani said the ``Prime Minister was merely reaffirming what was said by the Government through the President's address to the joint session of Parliament after the Vajpayee Government had come back to power... The intention is not to create a new Constitution. We do not want to create a new Constitution. There is no question of altering the essential features and principles of the Constitution.''

Describing the proposal to go for a review as a ``periodic health check-up'', Mr. Advani said he had always opposed forming a new Constituent Assembly. Trying to narrow down on ``problem areas'', he named the anti-defection law, strength of some State Assemblies and Centre-State relations as spheres where a fresh look could be given.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Front Page
Next     : A step backward, U.S. tells Pak.