President’s rule is not a political ploy. It is meant to be used upon a breakdown of constitutional machinery when there is no other choice in the matter. The present demand for imposition of President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh is instigated as an electoral tactic for political reasons — to exploit the tension between the governor and Mulayam Singh Yadav and to take advantage of a Congress government at the Centre.

First the facts. In August 2003, Mayawati abandoned the 18-month UP government to hazard plunging UP into an expensive election. Had she succeeded, she would have remained the caretaker chief minister until the fresh elections. MLAs from the BSP defected, astonished at their leader’s decision. Mulayam Singh proved his majority in 2003 and again in 2007. Elections are round the corner. It seems incongruous to ask Mulayam Singh to prove his majority again. It is well-settled that even if a minority government fails in a confidence vote and elections are to be held immediately thereafter, there is no question of President’s rule. The head of the minority government must continue as caretaker. The same rules that apply at the Centre must apply to the states. When minority governments fell at the Centre in 1979, 1991 and 1998, the respective governments continued as caretaker. Why should the rule be any different in the states simply because there is a provision for President’s rule? The ground rules of democracy do not change because of political expediency.

Misusing the instrument of President’s rule has been a Congress sport. Any excuse was good enough — law and order (Kerala, 1959), corruption (Tamil Nadu in 1976 and Manipur in 1979), Babri Masjid (Himachal in 1992). To this, the NDA added misrule (Bihar in 1998, which was withdrawn). In the present UP controversy, all grounds are being urged — law and order, corruption, immorality and loss of majority. If ultimately, the people have to decide, they will do so by March 2007. Thus, the endgame in the UP crisis is to get rid of Mulayam as caretaker by some means or the other. No constitutional principles are involved other than opportunism. The Bommai judgment (1993) is clear. These issues are “not a matter to be determined by the governor or for that matter anywhere else except the floor of the House”. In the UP case, even if Mulayam lost the confidence vote, he would still be entitled to continue as caretaker.

... contd.