The Centre’s authoritarian influence on the Union Territory of Puducherry was confirmed again following Attorney General of India K.K.Venugopal’s recent declaration in the Supreme Court, former MP M. Ramadass said.
In a press note, he pointed to the arguments on the nomination of three MLAs to the Union Territory assembly in the apex court where the Attorney General submitted that Puducherry was the “property” of the Union and that “it is my (Union Government) right to govern my property...” This proclamation was “feudalistic, undemocratic and unconstitutional and exemplifies a dictatorial mindset...”, Mr. Ramadass said.
Centre’s gambit
According to the former MP, the provisions of the Union Territory Act, 1963 provides for an elected Assembly and a Government to the UT by the people, for the people and of the people.
Hence the assembly and the government, if at all, are the properties of the people of the UT and not of the Union. By claiming that it is the property of the Union, the Attorney General had attempted to subjugate and subordinate the sovereign will of the people of the Union Territory, he contended.
According to the former MP, while it is true that in the matters of important decision making the final authority of the UT vests with the Centre, by no stretch of imagination does this power entitle the Union to be its owner. Perhaps, the Attorney General may be legally right in the case of Union territories like Andaman and Nicobar islands, Lakshadweep or Chandigarh which are deprived of an assembly and elected government and are directly ruled by the Union, Mr. Ramadass said.
“When the Union government is not the absolute owner of the property, it has no right to govern the property as well without the consent of the people,” he added.
Further, his assertion that the Centre is all powerful may be true as long as its actions are legal and in consonance with the spirit of the constitution of India, Union Territory Act, 1963 and sense of fairness.
In the instant case of nomination, the Centre was powerful as long as it nominates the members on the basis of the guidelines enunciated by the Home Minister of India. In its historic perspective, it may be remembered that the Union Territories Bill, 1963 was piloted in the Parliament by the then Home Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, he said.
Shastri’s rationale
When the bill — especially Section 3 (3) — was discussed and debated in the Lok Sabha and on May 10, 1963 in the Rajya Sabha, many of the Opposition Members described the idea of nominating three members by the Government of India to an Assembly of 30 members, as “most vicious, undemocratic, undesirable, manipulative and hence unjustified,” Mr. Ramadass pointed out. Their argument was that the unspecified blanket power of nomination would surely carry the risk of being misused by the ruling party.
However, in response Mr. Shastri had sought to dispel all apprehensions of the opposition members and stated, “Nomination as such need not be considered as something wrong or something undemocratic. In fact nominations, especially for these areas, are very important. There are various tribes belonging to different castes or communities……It would be worthwhile — if their number is large — to give nomination for such communities or tribes, as they do not get a place in the Assembly by means of elections. Besides that, we do want to give representation to women. We might, in case no woman is elected to the Assembly, give representation to them....”
Mr. Shastri continued: “I have no doubt the advice or the suggestion given by such technical people or qualified people or those interested in education etc., will be helpful. If they are in the Assembly, they will certainly be able to make a valuable contribution.” The Centre’s nomination was in complete violation of this rationale. attached to nomination. It had simply appointed three members of the ruling party without any further deliberation at the Centre without even knowing their addresses, Mr. Ramadass said.
He appealed to the Attorney General to realise the clear illegality of this nomination and advise the Centre to evolve a mechanism and then restart the process of nomination rather than making controversial statements.
