Indo-US Deal -- Parliamentary Nod Must, Constitutionally

INDO-US NUKE DEAL
Parliamentary Nod Must, Constitutionally

By Amba Charan Vashishth*

India is a vibrant, living democracy where every action of the government reflects – and should reflect -- the will of the majority of the people.
But, unfortunately, successive Governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation perpetually, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. All that the government in the past did was to make a statement in the two Houses of Parliament and, at times, allow discussions on such agreements or deals. But they never sought approval of Parliament. This, obviously, is a negation of the spirit of democracy.

Unhealthy precedent

It was India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent not in keeping with the spirit of democracy. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He, therefore, never thought it necessary to seek the approval of the House of the People which represented the will of the people. Nobody, in his time, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand. He seems to have exploited the fact that there is no specific provision in the Constitution making it obligatory on the government to seek approval of such agreements and deals from the Parliament. But equally true is the fact that there is no specific provision in the Constitution to exclude approval of such agreements by the Parliament of India.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of the then governments contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. One such instance is what Pandit Nehru did in entering into agreements with China on Tibet. It cost the nation heavily. The country lost about 40,000 kilometres of its sacred soil to China and lost thousands of its brave soldiers because of Nehru’s misadventure without the approval of Parliament. Kashmir is yet another of many such examples.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, yet they certainly did hurt its spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
A government needs to seek approval of the House of the People on every agreement or deal it strikes, including the latest Indo-US Nuclear Deal, not just because it binds the future of the nation, or atleast the next generation, to the commitments made in the deal, but also because huge financial commitments are involved in implementing an agreement or deal and, more so, the one like Indo-US deal. And under the Constitution the Union Government has no power to spend even a single paisa without the approval of the Parliament.

Constitutional provisions

Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution”.
Then Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President….in the exercise of his functions….” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, the Constitution makes the Council of Minister subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution does the present Manmohan government draw sustenance in refusing to seek approval of the Parliament? Government sign agreements with foreign countries in the discharge of their “executive power” for which they are accountable to Parliament. UPA is standing not on the strong legal and constitutional foundations but on the feet of clay provided by wrong precedents set by earlier governments having no constitutional sanction. By not seeking an approval to an agreement, like the Indo-US deal, Manmohan government is only defying the spirit of the Constitution that makes it “collectively responsible to the House of the People” At the same time, any disapproval of an agreement or deal should not be taken to mean as lack of confidence of Parliament in a particular government. There should be no need for the government to resign and instead it should come out with a revised draft, for approval, removing the points of disagreement expressed by Parliament. ***