Silently, but effectively, President S D Sharma has acquired the political power to select Prime Ministers by hobnobbing with whatever politicians he chooses to listen to. In the context of a hung Lok Sabha, he has acquired the further power to continue a defeated conglomerate of parties by choosing a new Prime Minister.With this, he has given a new meaning to Article 75 of the Constitution, which states that the ``Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President.'' Having presented the nation with this fait accompli of constitutional interpretation about the powers and role of the President he has now gone further to call a meeting in June of Governors and political parties on the issue of a hung Lok Sabha after the elections instead of the issue of the President's role after a ruling conglomerate like the United Front is defeated in the House specifically on a motion seeking its confidence. The President's entire approach is not only unconstitutional in terms of what the Supreme Court has already stated but is also unworthy of the high office he holds.It does not accord with the dignity of the President that he should indulge in political power play of the making or unmaking of a government without clearly declaring whether he is in or out of the race for the next term of Presidentship.In the absence of such a declaration citizens do not know how far he is guided by his personal interest. Surely the President who holds an LL.D in law knows that the highest office he holds requires this kind of conduct. The fact that till now he has not told the nation that he will not be running for the next term of Presidentship casts a legal cloud on all his actions involving the very elected politicians who will be the voters at the presidential election. With his experience of politics he can snugly remain sure that the conglomerate he has put in power with outside support of the Congress and the CPI(M) also ensures that this majority will never demand such a declaration from him or trouble him for not making it. But then that makes him a President of political expediency and not of constitutional or legal principles.In any event under Article 75 the President's power to appoint a Prime Minister cannot include the power to politically participate in the selection of a prime minister and then select one. The seven judge Constitution bench in the case of Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab had declared that the constitutional structure in India was the British Westminster type of parliamentary government. In England the sovereign, king or Queen, never acts on his or her own responsibility. The Crown has advisers in the form of Ministers to bear responsibility for its action and these advisers must have the confidence of the House of Commons. This rule is incorporated in our Constitution which envisages a parliamentary and not a Presidential form of government. Yet President Sharma has chosen to take responsibility in the selection of the Prime Minister instead of his mere appointment on the basis of whether a person contending to be Prime Minister had prior confidence of the House. He has turned the Supreme Court judgement on its head by issuing the appointing letter first to Prime Minister I K Gurjal and then asking him to seek the confidence vote from the House.It was to prevent such Presidential adventure that another five judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of U N Rao vs Indira Gandhi held that the President simply cannot act on his own even after the dissolution of the House because he must in all circumstances exercise his executive power on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Till the House is not dissolved the Council of Ministers must show it has the confidence of the House because under Article 75(3) the Council is responsible to the House and not to the President. Hence the only choice available to President Sharma was a dissolution or the House acting to choose a Prime Minister.Justice Krishna Iyer's separate judgment in Shamsher Singh categorically points out that the Union Constitution Committee in 1947 had rejected B N Rau's preliminary note that the President be clothed with some discretionary or personal powers. The Committee held that he would have no special powers personal to him and exercises all powers ``including dissolution of the lower chamber of Parliament only on the advice of his Minister.'' In the list of some exceptions given by Justices Iyer and P N Bhagwati the underlying note was that the ``Head of State should avoid getting involved in politics'' and that the President is ``placed above party and is made really the symbol of the impartial dignity of the Constitution.'' It is this that the nation has lost for consequences yet to unfold from the usurpation of power into the hands of single unaccountable person.
