Is President's Rule inevitable
?
Sandesh Prabhudesai
4 March 2002
Is getting Article 356 of the Constitution
invoked inevitable for the Bharatiya Janata Party, who is
otherwise opposed to this provision, to overcome the Goa
crisis?
This is being debated here in the legal
and political circles, after dissolving the 32-month old
Assembly last week under Art 174 (2) B. The annual budget
however is yet to be presented by the BJP government ruling
the state.
Chief minister Manohar Parrikar insists
that he can get the budget presented and passed in the Parliament,
in absence of the state Assembly. The legal experts contradict
it, pointing out that this exercise can be carried out only
under Art 356 and not when the House is dissolved under
Art 174 (2) B.
"Mr Parrikar will have no other option
than to resign while getting Art 356 invoked before 31 March",
opined Uday Bhembre, editor of Sunaprant and a lawyer
by profession, at a seminar organised by the Goa Union of
Journalists to debate upon fall-outs of the dissolution.
Dr Kashinath Jalmi, general secretary of
the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, has described it as
a state of ‘financial emergency’ by going for hasty dissolution
without presenting the budget. The budget session was to
begin on 13 March while the House was dissolved on 27 February.
In case Parrikar intends to go to the Parliament,
Adv Cleofato Almeida Coutinho, another legal expert, feels
the only option is to explore
the power of Parliament under Art 249 to legislate in respect
of a State subject in the "national interest".
While Art 249 has never been touched so
far, the Rajya Sabha declares by a resolution supported
by two-thirds majority of the members present and voting
that it is necessary and expedient that the Parliament should
make a law. But the BJP at the centre does not even have
a simple majority in the upper House.
Rather than exploring this, Parrikar talks
about two more options available with him, while stating
that budget need not be presented before 31 March and non-passing
of the budget is not a constitutional crisis. "What
can form a constitutional crisis is the failure of the state
to pay salaries and meet other expenses", he adds.
He thus plans to explore the first option
to invoke Art 206 (c) to pass an expenditure grant to take
care of state expenses for four months, before which fresh
elections could be held. "The cabinet can approve it
and an ordinance can be passed under Art 213, read with
Art 162 of the Constitution", states Parrikar.
Quoting constitutional luminary M P Jain,
Adv Coutinho however points out that there is a clear embargo
on the power of the governor to enact the Finance Act or
the Appropriation Act through the ordinances.
Prabhakar Timble, companion
of Adv Coutinho, also rules out the second option of the
chief minister under Art 267, to increase the contingency
fund to the extent of vote on account with cabinet approval,
followed by an ordinance. "To invoke this clause to
solve the constitutional deadlock or political contingency
would be perverse and a fraud on constitution", he
quips.
According to both the legal experts, contingency
is related to pre-prepared, pre-determined or pre-sanctioned
financial statement. In the absence of the financial statement
or budget, the contingency cannot be assessed.
While assuring Goans that an appropriate
vote on account will be issued soon through an ordinance,
Parrikar however states: "Let it not be forgotten that
it is I, as the chief minister, ought to be more worried
about the budget and not they".
