The musical garden had its finest moment one full moon night when Pandit Shiv Kumar Sharma played the santoor there to an audience of 500 people.
The biodiversity park was developed over the years by adding several avian and animal species, a waterfall, rockery, fish pond, rabbit house, duck house, a sick animal corner and habitats for birds. The park not only created a sense of caring and love towards nature, it became a source of attaining peace and calm. During my morning walk one day, I observed an abandoned fawn. My companion, Dr Sudhir, and I saw that she could not get up because two of her legs had been damaged during birth. Dr Sudhir treated her legs and we tried our best to reunite the mother and the fawn, but did not succeed. Every day, I fed the fawn with a milk bottle. In a week’s time, she got up and started walking; as soon as she saw me, she would run to me for milk. After a few weeks, the deer herd accepted the fawn. I felt deeply touched.
I am full of nostalgia for my days in Rashtrapati Bhavan and the pleasure that the Mughal Garden and other gardens on the estate gave me. It was a pleasure that I tried to share with others – the musical performances which featured many notable artistes used to be held in the garden, for instance. I bow to the Almighty for his kindness at having given me this opportunity to enjoy nature.
13
CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS
Conscience is the light of the soul
It is hard to separate my thinking and actions done as president from those before the presidency or after. After all, the person is the same, and an individual’s experiences form one continuum. There are three situations that deeply engaged my personal feelings, although the actions taken were based on logic and reason. The first one is to do with the dissolution of the Bihar assembly. I have discussed the issue many times but I will go over it once again.
A lot of advances in the IT sector took place during my tenure. Rashtrapati Bhavan became fully connected electronically. Wherever I was, in whichever part of the globe, I could access the database in real time from the files, and I could hold discussions. Emails allowed for instant communication. Thus when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called me and said that the Cabinet had decided to recommend the dissolution of the Bihar assembly based on the governor’s concern at the dynamics of the legislature what surprised me was that the assembly had been in suspended animation for over six months. Hence, I asked the prime minister, how come this sudden development had taken place. The PM said he would call back. The second call came at 1 a.m. Moscow time. I discussed the issues and raised the questions with the PM and I was convinced that even if I returned the Cabinet decision, it would not matter because the decision would be somehow taken. Hence, I decided to approve the dissolution.
As the court put it, in more technical parlance, ‘the Governor of Bihar made two reports to the President of India, one dated 27 April 2005 and the other dated 21 May 2005. On consideration of these reports, Notification dated 23 May 2005 was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 174 of the Constitution, read with clause (a) of the Notification G.S.R. 162(E) dated 7 March 2005 issued under Article 356 of the Constitution and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar was dissolved with immediate effect …’ Now the Supreme Court started debating the issue and many views emerged in the course of the discussion.
The Supreme Court in its judgement pointed out that the notification dated 23 May 2005 presented a unique case. ‘Earlier cases that came up before this court were those where the dissolutions of Assemblies were ordered on the ground that the parties in power had lost the confidence of the House. The present case is of its own kind where before even the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly, its dissolution has been ordered on the ground that attempts are being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state and if these attempts continue, it would amount to tampering with constitutional provisions.’
The Court put four questions:
1) Is it permissible to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution without its first meeting taking place?
2) Whether the proclamation dated 23 May 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal and unconstitutional?
3) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, is it necessary to direct status quo ante as on 7 March 2005 or 4 March 2005?
4) What is the scope of Article 361 granting immunity to the Governor?
When the Supreme Court started debating the issue many views emerged. I told the PM that the process by which I took the decision had not been presented properly in the court. I told him this once on the telephone and the second time personally. He mentioned that he would brief the lawyers to present the president’s action supported by the facts and sequence of events in Moscow and the number of times we had discussions before I finally approved the dissolution. Ultimately I was convinced that the lawyers did not put forth my side of the actions as expected. The Supreme Court verdict was with dissension. Of course, the judges were supreme and they were placing the responsibility on the governor and to some extent on the government. After all the Cabinet is mine and I have to take the responsibility.
As soon as the verdict was known, I wrote a letter of resignation, signed it and kept it ready to be sent to the vice president, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who was a seasoned politician. I wanted to talk to the vice president and hand it over. The vice president was away. Meanwhile the PM wanted to see me for some other discussion. We met in my office in the afternoon. After finishing the discussion, I said that I have decided to resign from the post of president and showed him the letter. I am waiting for the vice president to come. The prime minister was startled.
The scene was touching and I do not want to describe it. The prime minister pleaded that I should not do it at this difficult time. He said that as a result of the furore that would be created, even the government might fall. I had only one person to consult, and that was none other than my conscience. Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our heart. That night I did not sleep. I was asking myself whether my conscience is important or the nation is more important. The next day, I did my early morning namaz as usual. Then I took the decision to withdraw my decision to resign and not disturb the government. This action would have taken place irrespective of which party was in power.
Very few people in the country are using e-governance, which I consider a tool for a borderless world. It is a facility I use liberally in India and abroad. For those who move only physical files, it is very difficult to understand the power of e-governance. In dissolving the Bihar assembly (which was in suspended animation) I did what my conscience said was appropriate, regardless of where I was.
Manu warns every individual against accepting gifts. It places the acceptor under an obligation, he says, and leads a person into wrongdoing.
Broadly, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959, stipulates that certain offices of profit under the government shall not disqualify the holders thereof for being chosen as, or for being, members of Parliament.
During mid 2006, I received a number of complaints from MPs about certain fellow members holding office of profit. I had to deal with these complaints. I sent these to the chief election commissioner to study and conduct an inquiry wherever considered essential. When the complaints came in respect of two other members, namely Mrs Jaya Bachchan and Mrs Sonia Gandhi, a lot of members asked me why had the president initiated such an inquiry? Meanwhile I received the Office of Profit Bill from the Parliament for approval.
I studied the Bill and found that it had many anomalies. In the proposed Office of Profit Bill, I did not find a systematic approach towards deciding the question of what constituted an office of profit. Instead exemption was given to only the existing offices which were occupied by MPs. I also discussed the anomalies and my concerns with three former chief justices of the Supreme Court. I prepared a letter in consultation with my team an
d the three CJIs. I suggested that the Bill should clearly mention the criteria for exempting a particular office from the provisions of the Office of Profit Bill which should be ‘fair and reasonable’ and applicable in ‘clear and transparent’ manner across the states and union territories. Another point which I raised was in relation to the posts sought to be exempted by the new law. They said my concern was genuine and proper guidelines were required for determining whether a particular office comes within the purview of the Office of Profit Bill or not.
Then the question came up whether my letter pertaining to the Office of Profit Bill should go to the Cabinet or to Parliament. After going through the Constitution, I found that vide Article 111 it had to be referred back to Parliament for reconsideration. The Office of Profit Bill was not sent by the Cabinet for my approval but by Parliament. Hence, I returned the Bill to the secretary-general of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha for reconsideration by both the Houses of Parliament. This was the first time in the history of Parliament or Rashtrapati Bhavan that a president returned a Bill for reconsideration. Of course the next day, my letter returning the Bill to Parliament became a lead story in the electronic and print media. It became a subject of very intensive discussion. There was tremendous pressure on me irrespective of party lines to simply sign the Bill.
I only understood the meaning of profit or gift as stated in Manu Smriti: ‘By accepting gifts, the divine light in the person gets extinguished.’ A Hadith says, ‘When the Almighty appoints a person to a position, He takes care of his provision. If a person takes anything beyond that, it is an illegal gain.’
That was my concern and reason for returning the Office of Profit Bill. The Bill was reconsidered and sent back for my approval. The prime minister met me and he was surprised, as I normally send the approved Bill the next day. Why were weeks rolling by with no action taken? he wondered. I said some action is needed from Parliament and I have not heard anything about it. The prime minister said the Parliament has already decided on the constitution of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for going into all aspects of the Office of Profit Bill as per my suggestions. Meanwhile, criticism mounted for the delay. Of course I was clear that the minimum requirement must be met before I approved the Bill.
Many delegations from many parties came to see me on this issue. I was on tour to the North-East and I was flying from Kohima to Guwahati on my way to Delhi. During my journey, I received a message that the formation of a JPC on the Office of Profit Bill had been approved by Parliament. Once I got the confirmation about the action by Parliament, I immediately signed the Office of Profit Bill.
After a few months, Parliament approved the JPC report which was not complete and did not address the problem which I had suggested. Parliament has to deal with such issues with care, otherwise it would be construed that the highest body of the nation is promoting wrong practices which may set a national trend in different echelons of the government.
The return of the Office of Profit Bill clearly establishes how at the Parliament level, practices that cannot meet the standards of public probity are not debated and reviewed with the seriousness they deserve. This can be considered as a starting point for accepting wrong practices that will lead to compromises in formulating and practising a national standard.
Recently, we saw two fasting movements against corruption and many more may get inspired. I was asking myself, why are such movements taking place in our democratic country. This is basically due to the dilution of standards by Parliament itself. Hence, I would suggest that Parliament has to discuss for a minimum of two weeks the issue of corruption without walk-outs, and evolve a time-bound agenda for eradicating this evil in public life. As part of this, it would need to evolve a code of conduct for parliamentarians. If people’s representatives fail in their mission, then the people who elected them may express their frustration and dissent in many forms. Each political party has to take stock of what they have done in their own way to prevent or eradicate corruption through Parliament. The time has come for both Houses of Parliament to deliberate on this issue of corruption and find a time-bound constitutional solution to eliminate this menace, which includes the recovery of money parked in accounts abroad. Such actions by Parliament in time will bring confidence among the citizens and promote peace and harmony in society which is vital for the accelerated development of the nation.
One of the more difficult tasks for me as president was to decide on the issue of confirming capital punishment awarded by the courts after exhausting all processes of appeals. As a substantial number of cases have been pending in Rashtrapati Bhavan for many years, it is one inherited task that no president would feel happy about. I thought I should get all these cases examined from a normal citizen’s point of view in terms of the crime, intensity of the crime and the social and financial status of the individuals who were convicted and awarded capital punishment. This study revealed to my surprise that almost all the cases which were pending had a social and economic bias. This gave me an impression that we were punishing the person who was least involved in the enmity and who did not have a direct motive for committing the crime. Of course there was one case where I found that the lift operator had in fact committed the crime of raping and killing the girl without doubt. In that case I affirmed the sentence.
In my view while courts are hearing the capital punishment cases they should alert the law-enforcing authorities to intelligently find out the source of sustenance of the individual who is being punished and that of his family.
This kind of analysis may lead to the real person and the motive which has led to the crime.
We are all the creations of God. I am not sure a human system or a human being is competent to take away a life based on artificial and created evidence.
One of the responsibilities of the president is to appoint the prime minister of the country after every general election or whenever an occasion arises for change of the incumbent. On these occasions the president has to satisfy himself there is a party or a coalition which has the required number of members to form a stable government. The process of selection becomes more complex when there is more than one contender laying claim to government in view of none of the parties having a clear majority in the House. In this context, the 2004 election was an interesting event. The elections were over, the results had been announced and none of the parties had the strength to form the government on their own.
The Congress party had the largest number of members elected. In spite of that three days had passed and no party or coalition came forward to form the government. It was a cause of concern for me and I asked my secretaries and rushed a letter to the leader of the largest party – in this case the Congress – to come forward and stake the claim for forming the government.
I was told that Sonia Gandhi was meeting me at 12.15 in the afternoon of 18 May. She came in time but instead of coming alone she came with Dr Manmohan Singh and had a discussion with me. She said that she had the requisite numbers but she did not bring the letter of support signed by party functionaries. She would come with the letters of support on the 19th, she said. I asked her why do you postpone. We can even finish it this afternoon. She went away. Later I received a message that she would meet me in the evening, at 8.15 p.m.
While this communication was in progress, I had a number of emails and letters coming from individuals, organizations and parties that I should not allow Mrs Sonia Gandhi to become the prime minister of our country. I had passed on these mails and letters to various agencies in the government for their information without making any remarks. During this time there were many political leaders who came to meet me to request me not to succumb to any pressure and appoint Mrs Gandhi as the prime minister, a request that would not have been constitutionally tenable. If she had made any claim for herself I would have had no option but to appoint her.
At the allotted time, 8.15 p.m., Mrs Gandhi came to Rashtrapati Bhavan along with Dr Manmohan Singh. In this meeting af
ter exchanging pleasantries, she showed me the letters of support from various parties. Thereupon, I said that is welcome. The Rashtrapati Bhavan is ready for the swearing-in ceremony at the time of your choice. That is when she told me that she would like to nominate Dr Manmohan Singh, who was the architect of economic reforms in 1991 and a trusted lieutenant of the Congress party with an impeccable image, as the prime minister. This was definitely a surprise to me and the Rashtrapati Bhavan Secretariat had to rework the letter appointing Dr Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister and inviting him to form the government at the earliest.
Finally, the swearing-in took place on 22 May with Dr Manmohan Singh and sixty-seven ministers in the splendid Ashoka Hall.
I breathed a sigh of relief that this important task had finally been done. However, I did puzzle over why no party had staked a claim for three days.
During my tenure I had to take many tough decisions. I had applied my mind totally in an unbiased manner after eliciting opinions from legal and constitutional experts. The primary aim of all the decisions was to protect and nurture the sanctity and robustness of our Constitution.
14
AFTER THE PRESIDENCY
See the flower, how freely it gives of its perfume and honey.