THE CONTEXT: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent gesture of paying respects to the Constitution of India at the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance meeting has sparked a debate on whether his actions align with the constitutional principles he publicly venerates. Despite the optics, there are concerns about his adherence to constitutional norms and the principles of parliamentary democracy as outlined by B.R. Ambedkar and the framers of the Indian Constitution.
THE ISSUES:
- Premature Actions by the Prime Minister: The legitimacy of Prime Minister Modi’s actions before allocating ministerial portfolios is questioned. Specifically, it highlights the sanctioning of the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme and the decision to aid with the construction of houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. These actions were taken before the first cabinet meeting and the allocation of portfolios, raising concerns about the procedural correctness and adherence to the Rules of Business, which typically require such decisions to be initiated and regulated by the relevant ministries.
- Cabinet Decisions Without Portfolios: The first cabinet meeting for making significant decisions without allocating portfolios is criticized. It questions the procedural integrity of such decisions, including the assistance for housing construction under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. It implies that these decisions might have been made without proper ministerial oversight and detailed agenda circulation, which is essential for informed decision-making.
- Extension of Key Appointments: it points out the extension of tenures for National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Principal Secretary P.K. Mishra without reconstituting the Cabinet Committee. This was done under the old “Appointments Committee of the Cabinet,” which includes the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. It suggests this move bypasses the collective responsibility and proper procedural channels expected in a parliamentary democracy.
- Constitutional Morality and Coalition Dharma: The Prime Minister’s actions disregard constitutional morality and coalition dharma. It highlights the lack of objections from ministers or bureaucrats bound by constitutional details, suggesting a culture of compliance rather than accountability. B.R. Ambedkar’s warning about the need to cultivate constitutional morality and the dangers of a top-down, undemocratic approach to governance is ignored.
- Centralization of Power in the PMO: The extraordinary amassing of power in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which it claims undermines the cabinet system and collective responsibility to the President and Parliament, is criticized. It points out that the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules allocate business to specific ministries and departments, not the PMO, which is only supposed to provide secretarial assistance. This centralization is seen as a negation of the constitutional framework and ethos.
- Constitutional Dictatorship and Bhakti: It warns against the rise of a “constitutional dictatorship” facilitated by a culture of Bhakti (devotion) towards the Prime Minister. It argues that this devotion leads to a lack of accountability and a disregard for constitutional principles. Prime Minister’s campaign tactics, which included attacks on minority communities and the opposition, are evidence of this trend. It suggests that such actions undermine the secular and democratic foundations of the Constitution.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Strengthening the Role of the Council of Ministers: The Sarkaria Commission (1988) emphasized the importance of collective responsibility and the need for the Council of Ministers to function effectively. It recommended that the Prime Minister consult the Council of Ministers on all significant decisions to ensure collective responsibility and transparency. Article 74 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the President shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister. This provision should be strictly adhered to, ensuring that significant decisions are taken collectively by the Council of Ministers.
- Ensuring Adherence to the Rules of Business: The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) (1966) calls for strict adherence to the Rules of Business to ensure transparency and accountability in government functioning. It suggested that all decisions should be taken following the established procedures and after proper consultation with the concerned ministries. Article 77 of the Indian Constitution provides that the President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India. These rules should be strictly followed to ensure that decisions are made through proper channels and with appropriate ministerial oversight.
- Upholding Constitutional Morality: B.R. Ambedkar emphasized the importance of constitutional morality, which involves a paramount reverence for the forms of the Constitution. This principle should be taught to all public officials through continuous training and awareness programs. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court underscored the importance of constitutional morality and the need for the executive to act within the bounds of the Constitution. This judgment should be a guiding principle for all government actions.
- Strengthening Parliamentary Oversight: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) (2002) recommended enhancing the role of parliamentary committees to scrutinize executive actions effectively. It suggested that these committees should have more powers to summon officials and demand documents to ensure thorough oversight. Articles 105 and 118 of the Indian Constitution provide for the powers and privileges of Parliament and its committees. These provisions should be utilized to their full extent to ensure that the executive remains accountable to the legislature.
- Addressing the Centralization of Power: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005-2009) recommended decentralizing decision-making processes and empowering local governments and institutions. It suggested that the PMO focus on strategic issues and leave operational matters to the respective ministries and departments. Constitutional experts argued for a balanced power distribution among various branches of government to prevent the concentration of power in any single office. This balance should be maintained to ensure a healthy, functioning democracy.
THE CONCLUSION:
Prime Minister Modi’s actions, both as the Chief Minister of Gujarat and as the Prime Minister of India, raise significant questions about his commitment to constitutional morality and the principles of parliamentary democracy. As India navigates its democratic journey, it is imperative for coalition partners and the opposition to hold the government accountable to the constitutional ethos that forms the bedrock of the nation.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution and founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. 2021
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the concept of “constitutional morality” as envisioned by B.R. Ambedkar. Analyze this concept, focusing on the adherence to the principles of parliamentary democracy and collective responsibility.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word