|
COVER STORY: JAYALALITHA
Was The Governor Correct?
For a lady
whose party won precisely four seats in the 1996 assembly election, Jayalalitha
approached this year's poll with unusual confidence. "The people,"
she now says, "have given an overwhelming mandate for the AIADMK
because they wanted me to be the chief minister. Any decision against
swearing me in would have been an insult to the people's verdict."
The argument that the "people's court"
has somehow overwhelmed the legal court has been heard repeatedly over
the past week. Its usage is certainly not unique to Tamil Nadu. The Vishwa
Hindu Parishad proffered it in Ayodhya. When his Rashtriya Janata Dal
was re-elected last year, Laloo Yadav said the people of Bihar had exonerated
him-whatever the courts may have to say about the fodder swindle.
|

|
|
 |
|
Jayalalitha
has claimed that the special courts were Karunanidhi's means of
political persecution for which he's been punished.
|
A.G. Noorani, constitutional lawyer, says there
is no scope for confusion, "There is the people's verdict and there
is the rule of law." The first cannot override the second. So did
Fathima Beevi err? Under Article 164 of the Constitution, the governor
is free to ask any person to be chief minister, even a non-MLA, provided
the candidate gets elected to the House within six months. The courts
cannot intervene when "the governor calls a person to be the chief
minister and to form the ministry".
So is Raj Bhavan's authority unfettered? Krishnamurthy
doesn't think so, "Can a murderer imprisoned for 15 years be invited?
In the eyes of the law, this person is as guilty as one sent to jail for
two years for corruption. Can the governor invite a convicted killer or
a mentally unsound person?" Taken to its logical conclusion, Fathima
Beevi's decision implies so. From Veerappan to Chhota Shakeel, anybody
can lawfully and without a personal mandate become chief minister-and
by extension prime minister-for at least six months.
Democracy is a confluence of many streams-law,
popular will, morality. It would confound the most seasoned political
scientist to resolve a paradox of the type Jayalalitha has thrown up.
The AIADMK is virtually synonymous with her. It is futile to argue that
the people have not voted for her. Yet, as one jurist puts it, "If
one has to get down to the subtleties, one can say that the people have
chosen her as their representative. But has the state chosen her as its
representative?" This is where realpolitik ends and political philosophy
begins.
Perhaps Jayalalitha will find a kindred spirit
in an American who, to his people, was as much a cult figure as Amma is
to hers. Adam Clayton Powell was the "Darling of Harlem", representing
it in the US Congress from 1945 to 1968, the first black to do so. In
1966, a House committee indicted him for corruption and embezzlement.
When Harlem's voters re-elected him, the Congress voted to "deny
him a seat". He went to the Supreme Court which, in 1969, said that
the legislature could not refuse a seat to someone duly elected. The legal
court upheld the right of the people's court to do as it deemed fit; even
promote the unfit.
|