Free India After Independence: 1947-2000 by Bipan Chandra

exercise of presidential discretion and hence potential abuse or misuse of powers.
    However, even in otherwise stable situations, it has happened that presidents have, on occasion, either because of personal ambition or out of a sense of duty to the Constitution, exercised discretionary power. The most vivid example is that of President Zail Singh, who was the first to use the President’s power to return a bill to parliament. He also wrote at the same time to the prime minister that he was not being kept informed of important developments and this was preventing him from performing his constitutional duty of ensuring that the government was being run in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. There was much speculation that he might actually dismiss the prime minister. Later in the same year, 1987, when the Bofors scandal about kickbacks in defence purchases broke, it seems that Zail Singh did actually discuss with politicalleaders of many hues the possibility of dismissing Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister. In the end, none of it ensued, but it is clear that the potential for the President stepping outside the conventional limits of his powers exists even when a prime minister enjoys majority support in parliament. It is to be remembered that the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi had the largest majority ever in the Lok Sabha.
    Another area of debate relates to the President’s role in the dismissal of state governments and imposition of President’s Rule. Recently, in February 1998, in the midst of the Lok Sabha elections, the Governor of U.P., Romesh Bhandari, dismissed the BJP-led government of Kalyan Singh and swore in another man as chief minister. The High Court reinstated Kalyan Singh and the governor sent a report to the Centre recommending dissolution of the Assembly and imposition of President’s Rule. The Cabinet, after long deliberation, accepted the governor’s report and Prime Minister I.K. Gujral recommended it to the President. But President Narayanan returned it for reconsideration to the Cabinet, in a clear expression of disagreement. The Governor of U.P. accordingly resigned and Kalyan Singh continued as chief minister of U.P. with his ragbag coalition of defectors, criminals, and others.
    President Narayanan clearly had to exercise a difficult choice here. There were claims and counter-claims about the extent of support enjoyed by the Kalyan Singh ministry, there were defections and return-defections and allegations of monetary and other inducements. Nonetheless, the President decided that since the U.P. ministry had demonstrated its majority support, however unfairly acquired, on the floor of the House, he had no right to dismiss it. His critics argue that demonstration of majority support is not the only criteria on which to decide whether the constitutional machinery in a state has broken down and support achieved through intimidation or inducement can be questioned.
    It is to be noted that the 44th Amendment has given him the authority to ask the council of ministers to reconsider its advice, but if the council reiterates its position, the President must accept the advice. But, as seen in the case of President Narayanan and the U.P. issue, the President’s sending back the advice for reconsideration is taken very seriously and is unlikely to be ignored.
    In other areas, the powers of the President are quite clearly defined. When a bill is presented to him, under article 111, he may withhold his assent and, if he desires, return it to parliament for reconsideration. If both Houses again pass it and send it back to him, he is obliged to give his assent. In the case of money bills, however, he has no discretion. In any case, he has no absolute power of veto.
    The 44th Amendment in 1978 also made it explicit that the President can declare an Emergency only after receiving in writing the decision of the Cabinet advising him to make the proclamation. During the period of Emergency as well,