Sunday, Aug 18, 2002
Sunday, Aug 18, 2002 |
| Front Page | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Front Page
By J. Venkatesan
The party general secretary, Arun Jaitley, told presspersons ``the BJP's opinion is that the Commission's order disregards the primacy of the constitutional mandate under Article 174 (under which there should not be more than six months between two Assembly sessions)''. On the Commission's contention that the decision was taken in exercise of its functions under Article 324 of the Constitution, Mr. Jaitley said it was only an executive order. And ``powers under Article 324 can never be exercised by the Commission in derogation of a statutory provision''. Asked whether the BJP would challenge the order in the court, he said ``all options are open'' and the party would examine them and decide the course of action. Any order of a constitutional authority could be challenged and this order did not have a strong constitutional reasoning. Charging the Commission with creating a ``constitutional anomaly'', Mr. Jaitley said a constitutional authority should act in accordance with the Constitution and not ``engineer a crisis''. ``The BJP hopes that the Commission will realise the consequences of its order and untie the knot''. ``The party did not want a situation where a Chief Minister is in power without being answerable to the State Assembly or any authority for more than six months. The Commission should have considered this aspect and ordered elections to enable a new Government to be in power before October 6.'' Reiterating the party's stand on holding early polls, he said that the past unrest or tensions were not a weighty ground to defer elections, contrary to the letter and spirit of Article 174. ``We have precedents of holding elections in Punjab, Assam and Manipur, and in Delhi in 1984 within 45 days of the massacre in which over 3,500 were killed''. The language of the Constitution was common for all States, whether it was Jammu and Kashmir, Assam or Punjab. Maintaining that there was no constitutional breakdown in Gujarat warranting postponement of polls, he said if such reasons were given it would establish a wrong precedent which could have serious implications. Mr. Jaitely was categorical that the Commission could exercise its powers under Article 324 in ``unoccupied space'' or in circumstances when no provision existed. But in this case as Article 174 existed, ``an authority has to be guided by the Constitution and not in derogation''. Referring to the Commission's observation that President's rule could be imposed in Gujarat after October 6, Mr. Jaitley said ``powers to impose President's rule under Article 356 was not with the Election Commission but with Parliament, which has to ratify it''. The Congress and other parties, celebrating the order, were only delaying their date of defeat and the BJP would emerge victorious whenever elections were held, he said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
