`A serious encroachment by the Supreme Court'

V. SUDERSHAN

Interview with Somanath Chatterjee.

Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has been caught in a controversy following his statement responding to the Supreme Court's order with regard to the Jharkhand imbroglio. Venkitesh Ramakrishnan had a detailed interview with him on the different dimensions of the contentious issue a few days before he convened a meeting of the presiding officers of State legislatures. Excerpts:

One could say that you are virtually in the eye of the storm. Your statement responding to the Supreme Court directive laying out the parameters for the vote of confidence in the Jharkhand Assembly has been criticised by the NDA as an unwarranted exercise against the judiciary. The Speakers' meeting you have called to discuss the implications of the court order is being boycotted by the Speakers belonging to the NDA-ruled States and to top it all, there is also talk about a no-confidence motion against you.

Criticism is nothing new to me. In fact, I welcome criticism if it is constructive. But I have to disappoint my critics this time round. I do not agree that I have indulged in any unwarranted exercise against the judiciary. What I have done is to respond to my conscience as a parliamentarian of long service and to my present responsibilities as the Speaker of the House of People, the custodian of the constitutional rights and powers of legislators. What I have done is to highlight a serious encroachment by the Supreme Court on well-demarcated areas of powers of the legislatures. And because my conscience is clear, no amount of motivated castigation or chatter about no-confidence motion would make me run away from my responsibilities and duties.

Do you think you would be able to bring about a satisfactory solution through the Speakers' meet, particularly in the context of the boycott by the NDA Speakers?

I wish those who talk about boycotting the meeting would introspect about our parliamentary tradition, draw from their own experience and adopt a statesmanlike vision to contribute towards the strengthening of parliamentary democracy in the country. All this talk about NDA Speakers and Congress Speakers upsets me quite a bit. I have been a parliamentarian for some time and I have never seen Congress Speakers or BJP Speakers or Dal Speakers. The office of the Speaker was kept beyond partisan politicking. It is unfortunate to hear even senior leaders indulging in this type of talk.

But what exactly do you hope to achieve through the meet?

See, it is not a question of achieving a specific target. The judiciary's intrusion has blurred the contours of areas of supremacy of different constitutional institutions. Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution symbolise the supremacy of the legislatures within their own sphere, and these provisions are equally binding on the Speaker as well as the Supreme Court. In short, the delicate constitutional balance - between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament - , which is extremely crucial for the maintenance and sustenance of parliamentary democracy, has been upset by the court order of March 9. My effort all through was to bring these questions before the nation's collective wisdom and seek guidance. Put simply, I wanted the country to take note of this encroachment by the court and discuss whether this is a good development. One must also remember that the apex court itself has changed its opinion in so many cases.

One argument is that the issue on which you took up this initiative is not right. The contention is that the developments in Jharkhand marked a high point of the abdication of responsibility by the executive, or more concretely, a political class that placed narrow and partisan interests over democratic norms. When checks and balances available to the executive are rendered useless thus, should not somebody step in to set right the course? The line of reasoning also holds that the Supreme Court has merely done this but you are challenging the judiciary for this very noble act.

This is what I call deliberate twisting, misreading and distortion of my stance on this issue for political purposes. If I had lost faith in the Supreme Court I would not have suggested going back to it with a presidential reference. I am unhappy at this distortion. Particularly because some of my friends in different parties and the media have also substantially contributed to this, they too have been a party to the deliberate distortion of facts. My friends in the media should ask themselves what will happen if the Emergency comes back in this country.

Interestingly, some of the apprehensions against your own initiative are based on the same premise. The argument is that the Supreme Court has reacted to exceptional circumstances, one in which the executive has carried out a blatantly undemocratic action, as during the Emergency. There is even the view that the judiciary's present intervention is to be likened to what it did to set right the injustice of the executive in the Gujarat Best Bakery case... .

As I have repeatedly maintained, I have not and cannot, as the Speaker of the House of People, make a comment on the political merits of the case. It will be an obvious transgression of my constitutional powers if I did so. Whether Jharkhand is ruled by A or B or C is of no concern to me. In a sense, I consider that the Supreme Court order is a reflection of the anger of the judiciary at the way parliamentary democracy is practised in this country. I respect that sentiment. But, at the same time, I was, and continue to be, deeply disturbed with some basic thrusts of the order, and that is what found reflection in my statement and other initiatives. I am of the view that apart from matters of principle issues of practicality have also been infringed upon in the court order.

Could you elaborate?

There are some basic questions. What will be the business to be transacted in the Assembly? How disturbance and disorderliness there will be handled? Who can take steps to maintain peace? Who can take pictures in the House? All these questions are related to the procedures of conduct of the legislatures. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has no role in dictating all this. Will the judiciary send the police to control disturbance in the Assembly? Will it send lawyers as observers to watch the proceedings? How will it enforce its own directives? In my view, if the Supreme Court order were to be implemented in letter and spirit, there would be a contempt of court every day.

Equally important is the question as to who would issue the notice to convene the House. Usually it is done by the President [in Parliament] and by Governors [in Assemblies]. But the March 9 order was virtually a notice summoning an Assembly. I don't think this is the job of the court.

Then there is the question of videorecording [the proceedings]. Here too, I think that the court has overstepped its powers. As the Speaker of the House I will not allow anybody to enter the Parliament chambers without my permission. And, what exactly would the Supreme Court do with this video footage, even if it shows somebody disturbing the proceedings? We are talking about situations where even the Speaker, who is physically present, finds it unable to control. In such situations what will the court do with some footage? In my long experience in the House, both on the floor and in the Chair, I have seen even four or five people successfully ganging up to stall the proceedings. Some video footage is of no help in that situation. I am talking on the strength of my experience and, remember, the Supreme Court has no experience in the House.

So, what according to you would be an extenuating circumstance? What kind of situation would have justified the step taken by the judiciary in this case?

See, the people have assigned members of the legislatures the rights and powers to settle our own problems and issues. The provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 122 and 212, clearly symbolise the supremacy of the legislatures in their own sphere. That cannot be abrogated by anybody else. I agree that the courts have certain inherent powers. But this is not a case of the exercise of that inherent power.

Did not your statement provide some sort of ammunition to the unseated Shibu Soren government and the pro tem Speaker appointed by it to stall the implementation of the Supreme Court's directive to complete the floor test?

This is what I term as distortion of facts to meet the political end. You bypass all the crucial legal and constitutional issues involved in a context and reduce everything to petty politicking. What is sad is that those who indulge in these games do not spare even the Speaker's office. As I mentioned sometime ago there seems to be a deliberate ploy to devalue the office of the Speaker and deride its respect.

Do you not think that even the government paid only lip service to your imitative? You asked for a presidential reference but the government refused to do it.

Now, this is what I would call a classic example of giving politically confrontationist connotations to everything. I must tell you that the Speaker's office is not concerned with the government at all. The whole effort, unfortunately, is to create or manufacture a situation of confrontation of A versus B versus C.