M A I N   N E W S

Foreign origin issue ‘not priority’
Tribune News Service and agencies

NEW DELHI, Feb 14 — Constitution Review Commission Chairman Justice M N Venkatachaliah tonight said the issue of barring people of foreign origin from occupying high constitutional offices was not a priority item.

“There are far more important issues in the national agenda, for instance the population explosion,” he told Star News in Bangalore.

He was replying to a question whether he thought the foreign origin issue was a matter he would like to deal with immediately. He was also asked what were his views and whether the commission would accord priority to it.

On the views of former Lok Sabha Speaker P. A. Sangma, a member of the commission, that he would raise the foreign origin issue, Justice Venkatachaliah said a member was entitled to his views.

Meanwhile, Former Lok Sabha Speaker P.A. Sangma, who has been made a member of the Constitution Review Commission, today rejected the Congress charge of being biased but asserted that he would raise the issue of barring people of foreign origin from holding high constitutional offices.

Mr Sangma, who had led a rebellion within the Congress against Ms Sonia Gandhi being projected as a prime ministerial candidate during the last Lok Sabha elections, said he did not understand why the Congress should oppose his induction into the panel.

Rejecting the suggestion that the BJP was trying to “use” him, he said: “I am not representing any political party. On issues of national importance, I have always been impartial and transparent. I have my own views on various issues.”

“Whatever I say in the commission’s deliberations, these will be my personal views keeping national interests uppermost,” he said.

Rejecting the suggestion from the Congress that he was “biased” on the foreign origin issue, the Nationalist Congress Party leader said: “My views on this issue are well known, I am committed to it and I will take it up at the commission. I quit the Congress last year on this issue.”

Asked whether he would suggest a fixed term for the Lok Sabha, he said this was not the only way to ensure stability and it could be one of the measures to go about it.

To a question what other major areas were likely to come up before the commission, he said powers under Article 356 for the dismissal of a state government, devolution of financial powers to states, electoral reforms with special emphasis on anti-defection laws, uplift of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and more privileges to people’s representatives could be on the agenda.

Pointing out that of the total allocation of Rs 1.2 lakh crores for tribal sub-plan in the Eighth Plan, a mere fraction of it was spent, he said somebody had to be accountable for such a big lapse.

He said he would like the commission to make specific recommendation on the size of a ministry which he felt should not exceed more than 10 per cent of the strength of legislative bodies.

He pointed out that in some states, particularly in the North-East, the size of ministry had been more than 50 per cent of the strength of the legislature.

“In such a situation, the legislature becomes accountable to executive when it should be the other way round,” he remarked.

On the possibility of his return to the Congress, Mr Sangma said: “There is no question of going back to that party.”

“The Congress has reached a saturation point. People are unhappy with the existing organisations and their leadership. They are looking for something new, particularly the younger generation,” he said.

On the prospects of the Congress in the Assembly poll in four states, the NCP leader said the Congress was likely to get a drubbing and hinted that this could lead to change of leadership in that party.

Predicting a hung Assembly in Manipur, he said the NCP was likely to emerge as at least the second largest party where it was contesting 41 of 60 seats.

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee has pointed out glaring shortcomings in the working of the Constitution and said the review commission will look into various issues, including failure of anti-defection law, misuse of Article 356, politicisation of procedure for impeachment of judges and also consider enlargement of fundamental rights.

However, the basic features of the Constitution would not be a subject of review, Mr Sorabjee, who was in the 11-member panel, announced yesterday.

Mr Sorabjee, who has almost 50 years of practice mostly in constitutional law and administration law, said: “We have noticed certain shortcomings in the actual working of the Constitution” but added, to review it “is a very challenging task, which imposes heavy responsibility on each member.”

He said in fact the commission would consider “whether to curtail power to amend the Constitution provided under Article 368 so as to safeguard any damage to its basic structure”.

Expressing his views as a member of the commission, he said: “Any enlargement of the fundamental rights is most welcome” and added there were certain rights which were not expressly mentioned in the Constitution but had been declared so by the Supreme Court such as freedom of Press, right to privacy, right to education and right to travel abroad.

Mr Sorabjee said: “Judicial interpretation may vary and so there is a likelihood of change in judicial interpretation. Hence, it is worth considering whether these rights could be specifically included in fundamental rights chapter so that citizens are sure of their protection”.

He said one of the glaring shortcomings was the 10th Schedule of the Constitution dealing with the anti-defection law under which power to disqualify a member of the legislature had been given to the Speaker.

“Experience shows that in the states this power is not exercised objectively for partisan reasons,” Mr Sorabjee said.

He termed Article 356 as a “fatal fascination for every government at the Centre” to impose President’s rule in states and said: “There is a long history of its misuse”.

The Attorney-General said though the Supreme Court in the Bommai case had recognised judicial review of presidential proclamation “but that again is a majority decision (of the Supreme Court Bench)”.

“Parameters have not been clearly delineated and thus this is also an area which can be looked into,” he said and added that “Improvement and strengthening of Centre-state relations is another area of priority.”

Coming to the procedure for the impeachment of judges, Mr Sorabjee said: “Justice Ramaswamy’s impeachment case is a classic example of vulnerability of the procedure for impeachment of judges being politicised.”

Meanwhile, reacting on expected lines, the BJP welcomed the setting up of the commission to review the Constitution, and the Congress criticised the government for not spelling out “what it wanted to review in the Constitution” before seeking the support of the Opposition.

The Opposition parties would have an opportunity to criticise the commission in Parliament and there was no need of opposing it for the sake of opposition, the BJP spokesman, Mr Venkaiah Naidu, said.

The Congress Working Committee member, Mr Pranab Mukherjee, told reporters in Hyderabad that the National Democratic Alliance government should take into confidence Opposition parties before initiating any move to make changes in the Constitution, which was a document of “economic transformation”.

He said constitutional review was not possible without the support of all parties, as the ruling alliance did not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament, required to amend the Constitution.

Mr Mukherjee recalled that former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had called for a public debate when she wanted to abolish privy purses and nationalise commercial banks.

The Nationalist Congress Party leader, Mr P.A. Sangma, is the only politician whose name figure as a member of the commission.

The BJP, which had opposed his election to the Lok Sabha speakership, said: “He is one of the best acknowledged Lok Sabha Speaker with rich experience.”