Presidents of India have often disagreed with decisions of their PMs and governments and, sent controversial decisions or bills passed by Parliament for reconsideration.
New Delhi: When the presidential election date was announced, one of our colleagues asked, “Does the President act like a rubber stamp? Should the President put a stamp of approval on whatever the government says? My answer was “no”. This assumption is wrong. The Presidents of India have on many occasions disagreed with the decisions of their Prime Ministers and governments and, despite the role of the guardian of the government, Parliament, Army, and judiciary, sent some controversial decisions or bills passed by Parliament for reconsideration. Not only this, there was an easy way to keep a file under consideration for months. No time limit has been fixed in the Constitution. It is generally believed that the office of the President is similar to that of the King or Queen of Britain, but in contrast to this, every five years in India, he is elected by a majority. There has also been situations of coordination or conflict. Yes, it can be said that any prime minister and the ruling party should elect a person of favourable opinion for this post, so that serious situations of conflict do not arise.
During my journalism career, I have got opportunities to meet from Giani Zail Singh to the current President, Ram Nath Kovind. A book of about 550 pages on the lives and traditions of presidents was written in 2011. Based on my knowledge of this research work, along with the study of many past events, I believe that the dignity of this post should not be underestimated. Examples of disagreement with the government come from the tenure of Dr Rajendra Prasad. But I remember the experiences of Jail Singh and subsequent presidents. Some even have public records. One did not approve the Postal System Amendment Bill passed by Parliament. In this bill, there was a provision to open and see the letters of the people by the government machinery when needed for security reasons. It was considered by the President, after consulting his legal advisors, that it is a violation of the right to privacy of the citizen. And then it could not become law. Similarly, President R. Venkataraman had refused to assent to the bill to give more pensions to MPs by the Parliament at the time of completion of the term of Lok Sabha.
President Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma was very idealistic and the president of Congress and had old relations with Indira, Rajiv Gandhi, and Narasimha Rao, but on many occasions, he objected to the policies and decisions of the government. Perhaps very few people will remember that during Rao’s rule, when the securities’ scam came to the fore and there was a huge uproar, Dr Sharma advised Rao to get his Finance Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, to resign. Similarly, Sheila Kaul, a member of the Nehru family, was in the post of Governor of Himachal Pradesh. But before this, while being a Union Minister, serious allegations were made about the housing allocation scam and the matter went to court. Then the Rao government was not allowing CBI’s inquiry. Rao had adopted a flexible approach, as governors generally do not come under this purview. Then Dr Sharma took a tough stand, and Rao had to stop his election journey. The President gave him serious advice to get Sheila Kaul to resign immediately, and she resigned. Similarly, in a personal meeting, I was informed about a decision by the Rao government to return the file of the government’s proposal for nomination to the Rajya Sabha to a controversial leader. An important decision is of 1996. The term of the Lok Sabha was about to end. Then the Rao cabinet recommended to the President to reduce the fixed limit of campaigning from 22 days to 14 days and to give reservations to Dalit Christians. Dr Sharma rejected this recommendation and returned it on the ground that the date of the election can be fixed at any time, so such a decision should be left to the incoming government.
President K.R. Narayanan, while in office, said clearly in a newspaper interview that “I am not a rubber stamp president. I carefully examine every file that comes to the President.” Due to his independent opinion, during his tenure, a situation of deep difference of opinion and conflict arose. On the advice of the Supreme Court and the government, the President appoints judges. But when such a recommendation came from his side, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, A.S. Anand, took a strong objection. He said that such reservation in the appointment of judges is unfair. This controversy became public. At first, the government remained silent, but as the matter escalated, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee met the President and made it clear that the weaker sections and castes would not be ignored in the appointment of judges, but the government would not accept any quota in the appointment process. Later, the government rejected the files like the recommendation for the post of President of Sangeet Natak Akademi and returned them.
Pranab Mukherjee, despite all good relations, used to call the Prime Minister and give his opinion on some decisions of the Manmohan Singh’s government. Some cases have also been mentioned in his autobiography.
There is no doubt that Indian democracy has an amazing capacity for dissent and coordination. The President has unlimited power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister, ministers, Supreme Court judges, and Army Chiefs. But such a situation never arose. Yes, Giani Zail Singh had allegedly prepared to dismiss Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister. But he could not take such a drastic step due to serious objections from various sectors.
However, in the current era, it is a good sign that no serious differences have emerged between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and all constitutional posts, nor does there seem to be any tension in the election and functioning of the next President. With the cooperation of the Modi government and his party and other regional parties, he will be able to choose his favourite leaders as President and Vice President. The opposition can also certainly put up a candidate.
This has been happening before. The more important aspect than the discussion on the speculation of names is the role of the President to be elected, the right to invite a leader who can prove his numbers after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections to form a new government as Prime Minister.
The BJP and its alliance will not have any problem if there is a clear majority, but if the ruling and opposition alliance do not show a clear majority, the future government will be decided on the President’s stand and decision. All possibilities, dangers, and successes cannot be ruled out in a democracy. No country in the world is as powerful as the Indian democracy.
(The author is editorial director of ITV Network India News and Dainik Aaj Samaj)