In this connection, I agree partly with the argument of the hon. Member, Shri Kaul, when he said that it is a very dangerous doctrine to accept that a Governor can reject the advice of the Chief Minister. Once you accept the position that he can reject the advice of the Chief Minister, we really speaking, undermining the very basic concept of parliamentary democracy in the States and in the Centre. The whole structure of the Constitution as we understand it, at least as I understand it, is based on the position that the Chief Minister submits or gives his advice. Sometimes it may be called a request. Whether it is called a request or not, it does not cease to be an advice. It is rather too technical a view of the matter. It is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy that the leader of the House or the leader of the Party which is voted to power by the people, becomes the Chief Minister and when the Chief Minister gives advice it is the bounden duty of the Governor to accept it, except in cases where the Constitution specifically provides that he need not do so. A study of the Constitution would show that except under three articles, viz., Articles 200, 239 and 356, the Governor as the constitutional head has to act on the advice of the Chief Minister. That is the constitutional position.
Now, I am not entering into an argument whether the Chief Minister should give a particular advice or not. 1 do not want to hold brief for anybody, whether he is a Congress Chief Minister or a non--Congress Chief Minister. I am not taking that position. We can say under what circumstances what advice should be given which is good or bad politically. That certainly everyone has right to say. About that the final view can be taken by the people. That is why ultimately every five years we go back to the people who can decide whether the Chief Minister acted wisely and democratically or not. It is ultimately for the people to decide. I am not taking any view on behalf of the Central Government in this matter. Whether a particular advice was good or bad is not our concern. When advice was given to the Governor and when the Governor accepted that advice, whether he acted constitutionally or not, that is the basic issue, and I have no doubt in my mind, as I have understood the Constitution, that the Governor’s act was very constitutional. Whether it is good politically or not.
Shri A. D. Mani : May I interrupt? I am not trying to prolong the discussion. Madam, the Vidhan Sabha of Madhya Pradesh was in session.
Shri Y. B. Chavan: I am coming to that whether it should have been done or not is a different matter. If you were there in that position or if I were in that position whether I would have done it or not is a hypothetical matter. Possibly I may not have done it; possibly you may have done it. I do not know what would have happened in those circumstances, but what we are discussing is something very important. By taking only a particular case in a particular State, if you are trying to subvert the functions of a Governor, if you are going to subvert the Constitution, let us not forget that it would be harmful.
