Importance of Being India’s Rashtrapati

In 1857, the Indian mutineers, from different parts of the country, were marching towards Dilli. Even though, there was hardly any coordination among them, forget about the political charter, they were clear in mind that Bahadurshah Jafar, a beleaguered Moghal King, was their leader. The last Moghul Sultan was neither a statesman nor a brave warrior to remain at the centrality of the revolt. However, it was the respect for the Seat of Dilli than the person that had driven the revolutionaries to compel the reluctant King to announce sovereignty. It was the first attempt in India towards creating an indigenous constitutional order, wherein it was envisaged that the emperor of Dilli would be a formal Head of State and others would create their autonomous spheres in respective areas.

                                              

More than 90 years later, the leading lights of the Constituent Assembly, too, felt the similar need to have a non-executive Head of the State, which has resulted into creation of the Rashtrapati. Although close to the British monarch in its role and (non)powers, India’s Rashtrapati is not a hereditary post and can be impeached mid-way.  Unlike the British monarchy, whose legitimacy is overtly questioned by many progressives in that country, the Rashtrapati in India commands overwhelming legitimacy and respect.

India’s Rashtrapati does not act merely as a ceremonial Head. Rather, he/she can act with the prejudices, ideological opinions and his/her own interpretation of the Constitution. This is the reason why political parties wish to see a person of their choice becoming President of India. Normally, a Rashtrapati can hardly do any favour to a political party or the leader; however, his/her words can create an impact among the people that might go against vested interests of the party or the leader. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, created enormous hurdles for Nehru’s government on the issues of Hindu Code Bill by making his conservative views public. K.R. Narayanan created an awkward situation for the Vajpayee government when he publicly told the then visiting U.S. President Bill Clinton that ‘Even if the world has become a global village, the U.S. need not to act as its Mukhiya or Sarpanch’. Similarly, Narayanan kept the pressure on the Central government to act at the time of Gujarat riots.

The 44^th Constitution Amendment Act, enacted during the Janata Party government, has empowered the Rashtrapati to send back any legislation/decree to the Union Cabinet for reconsideration. This was done in the context of Fakruddin Ali Ahmad having no choice but to sign on the Emergency decree. Although the President has to give its consent if the Union Cabinet remains firm on its position, it gives negative publicity to the government and a brief period for public debate on the said legislation. It was again Narayanan who had embarrassed the United Front government and NDA government, respectively in the years 1997 and 1998, by sending back Union Cabinet’s proposal to dismiss the state governments in U.P. and Bihar respectively. On both occasions, the Cabinet did not insist on its recommendation and President’s word prevails. President A P J Abdul Kalam also sent back the Poll Ordinance, but on the insistence of Vajpayee government, later on, put his stamp on it. President Shankar Dayal Sharma refused to nominate members to the Rajya Sabha, as suggested by the United Front government, on the ground that the nominations did not fit the criteria prescribed in the Constitution.  Gyani Zail Singh used the unprecedented method of ‘Pocket Veto’ to kill the Postal Amendment Bill of Rajiv Gandhi government. In the United States, the President has the pocket veto, wherein he simply keeps the Congress Bill under consideration for indefinite period, neither rejecting nor accepting it, simply killing the unfavorable legislation with the passage of time. Indian Constitution is silent on this provision, but this sword can keep hanging over the head of Union Cabinet if it is not in best terms with the Rashtrapati.

Rashtrapati acquires real power in the face of voters throwing up a fractured verdict in the general election, as he/she holds the key of invitation to form the government. Political pundits have already started predicting a hung Lok Sabha in 2014. In such eventuality, President’s call becomes crucial, wherein he/she has to act according to precedents and his/her own assessment of the situation. In this context, all the parties would like to see the candidate, who is not overtly against their interests, winning the Presidential race. Provision of secret ballots, which means non-applicability of anti-defection law, and preferential voting, in case of more than 2 candidates, makes the presidential election interestingly intriguing. The forthcoming contest promises to be one.