NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Jethmalani tries to douse President-PM tussle over Constitution

By A Special Correspondent in New Delhi

Union Law Minister Ram Jethmalani today denied that there was any dispute between the President and the prime minister over the proposed review of the Constitution.

At a special function on Thursday in Parliament's Central Hall, the President had expressed himself against the review, and had asked: 'Is it that the Constitution has failed us, or have we failed the Constitution?'

Speaking on behalf of the government, he said in a statement that the controversy had arisen because of a total misunderstanding of what the President had said. "My reading of the President's speech is that he has approved of the process of keeping the Constitution under review and making the changes where necessary," he said in his statement.

The minister quoted part of the President's speech: "Whatever we may do, and we have a right to bring about necessary changes in the political and economic system, we should ensure that the basic philosophy of the Constitution and the fundamental socio-economic soul of the Constitution remain sacrosanct.

"This only shows that the controversy has been blown out of proportion," Jethamalani, one of India's foremost lawyers, told the media.

He said the government had no intention of tampering with the basic structure of the Constitution. "What we are suggesting that after 50 years, we only want that the Constitution be reviewed to see whether it has met the needs of the nation. For instance, Article 356 of the Constitution has been thoroughly misused and it seriously needs to be reconsidered," he said.

Article 356 allows the central government to dismiss a state government in the event of a constitutional breakdown in the state. However, since constitutional breakdown is not clearly defined, central governments have used to dismiss state governments, usually if the state government belonged to a party different from that in power at the Centre.

Jethamalani also flayed political parties for seeking to blow up the controversy.

"It is strange that the party that has misused Article 356 the maximum number of times is today opposing any suggestion to review this concept," he said.

He pointed out that even if any aspect of the Constitution's review was unacceptable to the different political parties, they could reject it.

"The present government does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament which is needed to bring about any constitutional amendment. So why are they so worried about a review panel that will only bring in new ideas rather than any changes," he asked.

The minister also said that too much was being read in the word 'review'.

"Every amendment is a review. If tomorrow, the women's reservation bill comes through, that will be a review of the Constitution," he said.

But asked why the government could not then bring about amendments rather than seek to review the Constitution, he replied, "What is the meaning of 'review'? It is to see whether the fault lies in the Constitution or in the people who manage the Constitution."

Calling on the media not to state parts of speeches out of context with reference to the President and prime minister, he declared that he personally was glad that the present President was not a rubber stamp but someone who applied his mind to various decisions.

"We have had presidents... who have signed on bills without thinking about them. The Congress amended the Constitution to make the President a rubber stamp through Article 74; let's not worsen it," he said.

Again, asked if Article 74 would be repealed, he replied in the negative, but added, "Anyway, the Supreme Court has anyway stated that in the Westminster model, the President is bound by the advice of the cabinet."

He said that many aspects of the Constitution needed to be looked into, given the fact that so much had changed since it was first written.

"Our founding fathers were the most brilliant but no one can predict everything about the future. For instance, our Constitution calls for a socialist pattern of development, but today surely our economy is no longer socialist. Yet, I believe that socialism must be retained because while our mode of production has changed, our desire for fair distribution still remains," he said.

Asked whether the government planned to drop the word 'secular' from the Constitution's Preamble, he said the government had no such intention.

"We have received no such representation from anyone to drop the word 'secular'. All political parties are committed to secularism," he declared.

Asked about undoing the Shah Bano amendment, he replied doing so would imply bringing about a uniform civil code, and he was not in favour of a uniform civil code. "I want uniform justice, and wherever the provisions of any religion is unjust and unfair, or goes against the Republic, then it must not be applied. But there is no need for a uniform civil code," he said.

He said the review committee would be set up in not more than 10 days, and that he didn't feel there ought to be more than a dozen people on the panel.

"We are just finalising some names and we will announce them soon," he said.

He reiterated that the Bharatiya Janata Party had no hidden agenda that it wanted to implement through the constitution review committee.

"If any party had a hidden agenda, it was the Congress which, in 1973, tried very hard to turn over the Keshavananda Bharati case. The Keshavananda case was the case that laid down the principle that the 'basic structure' of the Constitution cannot be changed. The Congress tried very hard to have this ruling overturned but was thwarted by the Supreme Court judges. And the only reason that the Congress wanted this ruling overturned was to implement its hidden agenda," he said.

EARLIER REPORT:
President, PM disagree on Constitution review

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report