Before giving my comments i would like to raise some issue:- "Why political parties are making so much hue and cry on this issue for which they are solely responsible." "Why they are evading a debate on this and making a law to aviod such situation."
1> Which party should call first to form a popular government in the state and their time period? 2> who will conduct the assembly for the vote of confidence either elected speaker or nominated. 3> What will be the role of Governor in such situation as happened in Jharkhand? 4> Is there any justification in taking oath as a Chief Minister without proving the majority?
"Just make some amendment in law to limit the role of Governor" "Deadline sould be same for all states in India to prove majority in the floor of the house." "First prove the majority in the floor of the house and then take oath as a Chief Minister." " Party having pre-poll alliance should call first,then single largest party and then post poll alliance if they claim to form a government in case of hung assembly." "Speaker of the last assembly will conduct the trust vote in a transparent manner".
I think it is wrong on the part of any one to take refuge under legal techncalities when the situation calls for immediate corrective action to assert the truth.
This is what the Supreme COurt tried to do.
In fact, the honest thing would have been to call the NDA representative first to prove his majority in the floor of the house.
Mr.Fali Nariman should remember that the fundamental purpose of law is to assert the truth more than anything else.
It would be an extremely unfortunate develoopment if perople get carried away by the form of law rather than its substance.
Orders flowing from SC or HC are themself law in itself.No person, what so ever his position be,can dare to disobey them.If it is done then such person loses his position and all immunity whatever law provides to him are withdrawn. Under such circumstances ,law must hold him guilty and punish. Further it is also a matter of concern that political vested interest are discussing WHETHER SC order to hold confidence motion on 11 mar 05 instead of 15 mar 054 ,is right or not.In this relation it may be noted that No constitutional authority is allowed to skip the laid down procedure and do work as per his sweet will.This is what was done by Governor of Jharkhand.There after, there were only two options left, 1-to take refuse in the court of law,or, 2-to take law in own hand. We all must under stand that if we are standing today it is on account of our legal system.Let us not destroy it.Let us not pass any remark against SC,HC or against our legal system,instead we must learn to work with- in our boundaries without violating procedures,if we want no interference from JUDICIARY.
The confidence vote should have been taken & Supreme court order should have been obeyed in letter & spirit. This shows very poor & depolarable conduct on the part of our politcal leaders. It is shamefull.Very dangerous trend for our Parliament & state assemblies.
It is good that there is sign of Judicial Activism but it should not compromise its dignity in any case. The seriousness of the highest courts' intervention has got undermined in Jharkhand case which was not unexpected. So Judicial Activism should have commanding area and sufficient force.
