GOVERNOR’S ROLE IN THE NATAKA FOR KARNATAKA

It has been a week filled with twists and turns for the people of Karnataka. As the fiercely fought election ended, the results opened the doors for an all-out battle for power. As the final trends began to emerge, the Congress outsmarted the BJP by going for a post poll alliance with JDS and staked claimed to form the next government.

As news of the Congress-JDS tie up emerged, the BJP went to the Raj Bhavan and staked claim to form the next government by virtue of it being the single largest party. Sometime later the Congress-JDS combine too staked claim to form the government. It is from here that the Governor’s role comes into play.

The Governor’s discretion

At the outset, no one is disputing the discretion of the Governor. The Governor does have discretion under the Constitution but that discretion has to be objectively exercised based on the material placed before him. In this case, the material before him was a letter submitted by the BJP stating that it is the single largest party and it would prove its majority on the floor of the house if invited to form the government. He had another letter, from the Congress-JDS combine stating that they had the support of 116 newly elected legislators.

The Constitution required the Governor to assess both these letters objectively and then exercise his discretion of inviting the leader of a party/group to form the government.

The Legal position 

The Sakaria Commission, in its report had recommended that the Governor must consider inviting in order, the largest pre-poll alliance, or the single largest party or the largest post-poll alliance. In fact, this was the precedent that President R Venkataraman set when he invited Mr Rajiv Gandhi to form the government in 1989 before inviting Mr VP Singh. To an extent, this was done in 1996 also when Mr Vajpayee was invited to form the government by President Shankar Dayal Sharma. And it was also BJP’s contention in the midnight hearing of the Supreme Court. 

However, the Sakaria Commission report dates back to the pre-Bommai judgement. It must be noted that since the Bommai judgement the Supreme Court has, in almost every such case, emphasised on ‘stability’. In this context, the post-poll alliance must get primacy over the single largest party. The latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard was in the Chandrakanth Kavelkar case in which it upheld the Goa Governor’s decision to invite Mr Manohar Parrikar’s post-poll arrangement to form the government.

The Governor’s Action 

The Law is as it is declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141. The Governor should have on that basis, invited the Congress-JDS combine to form the next government. However, he chose to challenge the wisdom of the Supreme Court by inviting the BJP, which in any objective way, fails to satisfy that it has majority, to form the government and gave it fifteen days to prove its majority.

 

This act, in any absurd way, is incomprehensible to any individual with little understanding of Law. The very fact that the Supreme Court chose to hear this matter at midnight is testimony to the Governor’s absurdity. The Supreme Court did everything it could to prevent this assault on the Constitution taking place by cutting the time given for floor test from 15 days to 24 hours. It also saved the Governor from embarrassment by not setting aside his invitation to Mr Yeddyurappa to form the next government.

It would be appropriate if Mr Vajubhai Valla takes moral responsibility and steps down from the office of the Governor to preserve the dignity of that office.