The incorrect way

Congress should have been invited first in Goa, Manipur

Far from the euphoria of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) stupendous victory in Uttar Pradesh, there has been hectic political activity in Goa and Manipur, two states where the election results threw up hung Assemblies. In both the states, though, it is the BJP that is forming the government, even though the Congress is the single-largest party. While Manohar Parrikar has been sworn in as Goa chief minister, Manipur’s Governor Najma Heptulla has invited the BJP to form the next government. Much of the credit for this must go to the BJP brass, which moved swiftly and stitched together a coalition that it claimed had the majority, while the Congress was slow in its response in staking claim. In fact, while hearing a Congress petition challenging the decision of Goa’s Governor Mridula Sinha, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held the Congress responsible for not being quick enough to demonstrate to her that it had the requisite numbers. 

But it is not a pretty sight. Both state governors have evidently failed to follow the convention laid out for them in case of a hung Assembly. As a general rule, the governor is expected to invite the leader of the single-largest party or a pre-poll coalition to form the government and prove its majority in the House. In Goa, the results placed the Congress in the pole position with 17 seats out of the total 40. However, instead of approaching the Congress, Ms Sinha appointed Parrikar of the BJP, which won 13 seats, and provided him 15 days to prove his majority. No surprise, therefore, that the Supreme Court on Tuesday reduced the floor test deadline to two days. The BJP, however, seems unperturbed by this advancement of the date because it is now the party in government and claims to have the support of 22 MLAs, one more than the majority mark, including three each of the Goa Forward Party and the Maharashtravadi Gomantak Party as well as three Independents. 

Numerous previous episodes in India’s electoral history suggest that a decision to ignore the single-largest party could well lead to horse trading. To be sure, there are ways to justify what is happening. For one, it could be argued that the governor is supposed to consider the question of stability of the government. As such, if she is presented with a post-poll coalition with written letters from the smaller parties, she might feel obliged to bypass conventions. Moreover, this is not the first time when this convention has been flouted. In the past, there have been episodes, both at the Centre and in states, often enough involving the Congress as the beneficiary of such discretion. For instance, in 1998 then President K R Narayanan did not approach Atal Bihari Vajpayee first despite the BJP emerging as the single-largest party after the general elections. Similarly, the Congress exploited post-poll alliances to form governments in Maharashtra in 1999 and Karnataka in 2004 despite not being the single-largest party.

However, none of these incidents provide legitimacy to a wrong precedent. If the Congress does not have the support in either House, it would have become evident soon enough. But offering it opportunity first would have saved the country this sordid drama.