कवि राजेंद्र बहादुर सिंह एक परिचय  
राजेन्द्र बहादुर सिंह (आर . बी . सिंह)  का जन्म उत्तर प्रदेश के  एक  कायस्थ परिवार में हुआ था। उनके पिता श्री कृष्णा नन्द सिंह इलाहाबाद के दीवानी न्यायालय में वकालत करते थे तथा उनकी माता एक घरेलू स्त्री थी। बचपन में ही भारतीय  स्वतंत्रता आन्दोलन का इनके ऊपर प्रवाह  पड़ा जिसके  कारण  वे बचपन से ही न्याय   तथा भ्रस्टाचार  के विरोधी हो गए तथा इनका मन ऐसे  लोगो की  जीवनी पड़ने में ज्यादा  लगने लगा। यधपि विध्यार्थी  जीवन में वे विज्ञानं के   विध्यार्थी रहे मगर उनका झुकाव लेक्नी की तरफ शुरु से ही रहा जिसके फलस्वरूप   विध्यार्थी जीवन में ही उन्होंने अनेक लेख एव कविताए लिखी तथा अवसर मिलने पर लोगो के समुख उसे प्रस्तुत भी  किया। अपने लेखनी के  प्रति झुकाव के चलते सरकारी सेवा  से अवकाश ग्रहण करने के उपरांत उन्होंने इलाहाबाद से प्रकाशित दैनिक समाचार पत्र  अवर लीडर के  माध्यम से  भी अपने लेखो तथा कविताओं को  प्रकाशित करना आरम्भ किया। तब से लेकर अभी तक  उन्होंने राजनितिक, सामाजिक, धार्मिक एव  अन्य विषयो पर गध  तथा पध  दोनों में अनेको पुस्तके लिखी है। श्री आर . बी . सिंह के द्वारा   पध में लिखी  कुछ प्रमुख  पुस्तके निम्न है 

लाहौर बस जर्नी 
दी आगरा समिट 
दी काठमांडू सार्क समिट 
वाजपेयी क्रुसेडर फार पीस 
मनमोहन सिंह  क्रुसेडर फार पीस 
दी रीटायरमेंट डेज 
डोंट वरी ऑन  योर एकजिस्तिंग फेट 
गौरव वेडस नेहा 
दस स्पेक लार्ड  राम 
दीपावली पूजा सेलिबरेश्न इन  व्हाइट हाउस वाशिंगटन 
दीपावली पूजा सेलिबरेश्न एट डाउनिंग स्ट्रीट लंदन 
मर्यादा पुर्षोतम राम आफ अयोध्या 
जग जननी माता सीता आफ अयोध्या 
अन्ना हजारे क्रुसेडर फार जन लोकपाल 

राजेन्द्र बहादुर सिंह वर्तमान में  "कृष्णा  विला " 37 डी /48 सी  राजरूपपुर इलाहाबाद में रहकर अपनी लेखनी के माध्यम से देश और समाज के लिए अपना योगदान कर रहे है।मोबाइल: +919559869371
ईमेल: to.rbsingh@gmail.com
   

Condolence Message on Passing of Sri Bal Thackeray

I humbly pay my tribute to the Shiv Sena patriarch Sri Bal Thackeray, who passed away today. I think an era has come to an end with the passing of Sri Bal Thackeray, the man who became a legend in his life time. The country particularly Maharashtra has suffered irreparable loss by his departure to his heavenly abode. The void created by his death is hard to fill. I pray to the Almighty God to grant peace to his departed soul and courage to the members of his family to bear the irreparable loss.

SCOPE OF ARTICLE 164(1)

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on November 6, 1993

We have witnessed something in Karnataka, which needs mention.

            A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Mr. Justice Ramajois and Mr. Justice N. D. Venkatesh had passed certain strictures in Arrack Bottling contact to Messrs Sea Shell Bottling Company; in pursuance of the above, Ram Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka, sent his resignation on 11^th February, 1986 to A. N. Banerjee, Governor of Karnataka, who was on tour.

             It was announced that the Governor would return the next day. Rama Krishna Hegde, later left for Kanpur to attend the wedding of a relative.

A.               N.  Banerjee, Governor of Karnataka on February 12, 1986 deferred the acceptance of the resignation of Rama Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka; it was announced that the Governor would take a decision on it on Friday, the February 14, 1986, the Speaker need out a statement that the law and parliamentary Affairs Minister had informed him of Mr. Hedge’s resignation and he was adjourning the house sine die.

Arjun Singh, vice President of Congress (i) party on February 13, 1986 at a hurriedly convened press Conference, questioned the ptopriety of Karnataka Governor with holding the resignation of the Chief Minister Mr. Ram Krishna Hegde and said this had created a vaccum. In the event of resignation of a Chief Minister, it was the Governor’s responsibility to accept or the reject it. The later being very rare.

The Governor’s decision to with held the resignation has bogged down the normal constitutional process; he told.

The right course for the Governor, Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. Bhagawat Jha Azad, General Secretary Incharge of Karnataka said, would have been to accept Mr. Hedge’s resignation and asked him to continue till alternative arrangement was made.

In wake of the above assertion, A. N. Banerjee, Governor of Karnataka accepted the resignation of the Chief Minister Ram Krishna Hegde on February 13, 1986 in late hours of night, ( a day before the day fixed by him or the same after talked with Hedge), without waiting for the return of the Chief Minister Ram Krishna Hegde from Kanpur.

There was hectic political activities in Delhi…..after it the Janta Legislative party of Karnataka met on February 16, 1986 at Bangalore and re-elected Ram Krishna Hegde, the outgoing Chief Minister of Karnataka as its leader. His name was proposed by Mr. Chandrashekhar, President of Karnataka Janta Party and seconded by N. S. Narayan Rao, General Secretary of Janta Party.

Ram Krishna Hegde, later told newsmen, as a humble party worker I have no alternative but to accept the decision of the Janata Legislative party of the state.

The re-election of Ram Krishna Hegde, as leader of the Janta Legislative Party of Karnataka was communicated to the Governor same day , and he was requested to re-invite him to form a Government by the Secretary of the Janta Legislative Party of Karnataka.

The Governor of Karnataka accepted the above , and invited Ram Krishna Hegde to form a government. He administered oath of office and secreacy to Ram Krishna Hegde on February 16, 1986 at about 3 p.m. with him were also sworn in 14 Cabinet Ministers and 15 Ministers of state; thus ended the drama on February 16, 1986 annunciated by Ram Krishna Hegde on February 11, 1986 by sending his resignation to the Governor.

1.    In the above process the Chief Minister of Karnataka used and exercised the constitutional process mentioned in Article 164(1) of the Constitution of India of submission of his resignation.

2.   The Governor of Karnataka used and exercised the constitutional process, mentioned in  the same Article of the appointment of the Chief Minister and 29 other ministers.

3.  The Governor of Karnataka used and exercised the constitutional process mentioned in the same Article administering of oath to the Chief Minister and Ministers.

1.   The submission of the resignation by Ram Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka had caused one constitutional process to take place; for the sake of his political expediency or otherwise…..

2.   The acceptance of the resignation of Ram Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka by the Governor, other developments and his swearing along with other ministers had caused three more constitutional processes to take place.

3.         Had the Governor of Karnataka struck to is earlier decision of February 12, 1986 by which he had deferred the acceptance of the resignation of Chief Minister Ram Krishna Hegdetill talks with him on Friday i.e. February 14, 1986 or for few days more certainly the process as found our between February 13, 1986

But the havoc created by the version of Arjun singh, Vice President of Congress (I) Party and Bhagwat Jha azad, General Secretary had caused the hasty acceptance of the resignation of Chief Minister Ram Krishna Hegde by A. N. Banerjee, Governor of Karnataka and multiplication of the constitutional process. Chandrashekhar, Janta Party president from the very start of the Karnataka Drama was insisting that Chief Minister, Ram Krishna Hegde need not resign his office…. In the entire process of the resignation of Ram Krishna Hegde on February 11, 1986… thus had become an extra constitutional centre of power too, like Vice President of ruling Congress (I) Party Arjun Singh.

            The Governor of State has one and only one adviser the Chief Minister and his council of Ministers which continue to command the uninterrupted confidence of the Legislative Assembly of the State.

1.       Here the faith of the Legistlative Assembly had not been lost; It was retaining

Ram Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka and his Council of Minister of Karnataka and only Ram Krishna Hegde was running away.

2.  If Ram Krishna Hegde would have run away; the Janta Legistlative Party to Karnataka would have elected a leader who would have come out with full vigour and formed the Government as Chief Minister of state and deformed his Constitutional function under relevant articles of the constitution of India.

3.   There was no need for Governor to accept the advice of the extra constitutional center of power i.e. Vice-President of ruling Congress(I) Party of the Centre and its general secretary and make a mess of every thing .

4.   The relationship between A. N. Banerjee of Karnataka and Ram Krishna Hegde, Chief Minister of Karnataka and his cabinet were strained from the begning  they become cordial due to the cordiality and good will developed due to the process of the reconciliation , understanding and toleration then by Rajive Gandhi , Prime Minister of India……. Now this heavy acceptance of the resignation of the Chief Minister Ram Krishna Hegde on February 13, 1986 after deferring it on February 12, 1986 till February 14, 1986 had sowed the seed of his content again.

I advice both the Governor and the Chief Minister to come together for getting this discontentment.

One question to Arjun singh. Vice President of ruling Congress (I) Party of the Centre.

You have served as Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, along with three Governors, C.M. Poonacha, Bhagawat Dayal Sharma and K. M. Chandi …. If you would have submitted your resignations like Ram Krishna Hegde and they would have deferred the acceptance of your resignation for two days for talks to you and then would have accepted it hastily the next day; what you would have experienced , you certainly would not have admitted the said act of the Governor but would have felt it otherwise.

            Why you sent a havoc by your press conference of February 13, 1986 by which the Governor became an easy prey and hastily done something which he would not have done otherwise.

A.        N.    Banerjee Governor of Karnataka, had done something like Governor Dharma Vira, D. C. Pavate, Ram Lal , Jagmohan, etc. of the times of previous regimes.

In the end I have to emphasis that the office of the Governor is a constitutional office, he is the HEAD OF STATE, the nominal executive, the replica of British Monarch, he should not subject himself to the dictates of Delhi, but always act on the advices of his constitutional Advisers or the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers of the State. 

DON'T WORRY ON YOUR EXISTING FATE: Book By R. B. Singh

A motivational book written by me

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ARTICLE 356

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on October 22, 1993

Events are events, they cannot be denied: it is better to have a clear and distinct vision of the past to provide a safeguard against the re-occurrence of them in future.

Bengal had been termed always, the laboratory of India; it had also been said, “What is occurring in Bengal today, will occur in the rest of India tomorrow.

          Following the events of February 14, 1968 Shri Dharam Vira, Governor of West Bengal, might have summoned Dr. P. C. Ghosh, Chief Minister of the state, belonging to the Progressive Democratic Front Congress Party, members of his Council of Ministers, secured an advice from them for dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and mid-term poll. He would have dissolved the Legislative Assembly in exercise of his powers under Article 172(2) (b) of the Constitution of India, asked Dr. P. C. Ghosh and his Council of Ministers to function in caretaker capacity, wrote to the Chief Election Commissioner to make arrangements for the mid-term General Election, but he did not choose the above instead he preferred to submit a report to the President of India in exercise of his powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India while reads:

(i) If the President on receipt of report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provision of this Constitution, the President may be Proclamation

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any body or authority in the State;

(b) Declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament.

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to anybody or authority in the State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorize the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision on this Constitution relating to High Courts.

            He wrote to the President of India:

            As you are aware the United Front Ministry led by Shri  Ajoy Kumar Mukherji as the Chief Minister ceased to hold office on the 21^st November 1967 and the Ministry headed by Dr. P.C. Ghosh, leader of the newly formed Progressive democratic Front, and supported by the Congress Legislature Party was sworn in on the same day.

            I enclose a copy of the press announcement from Raj Bhawan of the 21^st November 1967 which give the necessary back ground in this regard and which I authorized for issue at the time. Also enclosed are copies of the relevant gazette notifications on the subject.

            On the advice of the new Chief Minister, Dr. P. C. Ghosh I summoned a session of the state Legislature to meet on the 29^th November 1967. At the commencement of the sitting of the Legislative Assembly on that date and before any other business could be taken up, the speaker made a written statement in the first paragraph of which he remarked as follows:

            “ I am prima facie satisfied that the dissolution of the Ministr headed by Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, the appointment of Dr. P. C. Ghosh as Chief Minister, and the summoning of the House on his advice is unconstitutional and invalid  since it has been effected behind the back of this house. Pending a full and proper examination of the matter, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Rule 15 of the rules of procedure of this Assembly I adjourn the House sine die.”

       I enclose a copy of the Speaker’s statement. This was followed by compete pandemonium in the House during which the Chief Minister was hit by a heavy metallic object hurled towards him causing him, fortunately, only a minor injury. The Legislative Council also met on the same day and passed a motion of confidence in the Ministry headed by Dr. P. C. Ghosh.

            On the advice of the Chief Minister I prorogued  the Legislative Assembly with effect from the 30^th November 1967 and also on his advice, the Legislative Council with effect from the 1^st December 1967.

On 21^st November 1967 I had sworn in the two other Ministers belonging to the Progressive Democratic Front along with the Chief Minister. The Ministry was subsequently enlarged by the addition of four Ministers and four Minister of State, all belonging to the Progressive Democratic Front. The congress party in the state Legislature later decided to form a coalition with the Progressive Democratic Front and on the 15^th January 1986 , six Ministers belonging to the Congress Party, were appointed on the Chief Minister advice. The Progressive Democratic Front, Congress coalition Ministry thus came to consist of the Chief Minister, 12 Ministers and four Ministers of state.

          The legality of appointment of the Ghosh Ministry was contested by three writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court. On the 6^th February a Judge of the Calcutta High Court after a contested hearing delivered an elaborate judgment and upheld my legal competence to take the action I had taken as Governor of the State. A copy of the Judgement is enclosed. I understand that an appeal has been filed before the appeal bench of the High Court against that Judgment.

           On the 11^th February, 18 MLAs wrote to me withdrawing their support to the Progressive Democratic Front Congress coalition Government from that date. Some of them also came to see me alongwith Shri Ashutosh Ghosh , MLC. These MLAs formed a Front called the Indian National Democratic Front under the leadership of Shri Syankardas Bajerji, MLA. There were some tals between the MLAs who formed Front and the United Front Leaders for forming an alternative Government.

              In this connection Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherji, leader of the United Front and Former Chief Minister, and Shri Jyoti Basu, former Deputy Chief Minister, met me on the 13^th Feburary. They handed over to me a copy of their letter to Shri Shankardas Banerji offering the United Font’s support to his party on certain conditions. They said that as the congress, Progressive Democratic Front coalition had lost its majority, that Ministry should be dismissed and Shri Shankardas Banerji invited to form a new Government with the United Front support. I told them that as the Assembly was to meet on the 14^th February, the question of relative strength of the parties could easily be decided on the floor of the Assembly. I pointed out to Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherji that this was the identical advice I had given to him and only when the disregarded my advice that other action by me followed.  

Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherji and Shri Jyoti Basu hereafter requested me not to address the joint session of the Assembly and the council on the 14^th February as they did not like any unseemly incidents to occur. I told them that I had certain constitutional obligations and they had to be discharged. Merely a danger of incidents could not deter me from discharging my constitutional obligations. There after after Shri Ajoy Kumar Mukherji and Shri Jyoti Basu urged that I should recommend to you the President’s rule because if the President’s rule could be introduced even for a day they would withdraw the agitation against the calling of the Assembly being illegal and would not mind if thereafter, if I thought that Dr. P.C. Ghosh enjoyed a majority, I invited him to form a government again.

            I told them that the question of President’s rule or some other action could be considered only after the Assembly had met. These matters could not be decided in advance.

             The first session of the State Legislature for 1968 was summoned by me on the advice of the Chief Minister to meet on the 14^th February, 1968. According to the Constitution I was required to address a joint sitting of both the Houses of the Legislature. After the legislature was summoned the leaders of the United Front declared that they would prevent me from entering the legislature and delivering my address and would do everything to disrupt the functioning of the Assembly. When I went to the Assembly to deliver my address a determined group of MLAs, belonging to the United Front demonstrated against me and attempted to prevent me from entering the legislative chamber through the usual entrance.  However, I was able to go into the legislative chamber by a side entrance and amidst great pandemonium began reading my address. I was able to read only a portion my address explaining the cause of summons and as because of the pandemonium there was no point in my continuing to read my address, I left the Chamber.

              A motion of thanks was thereafter proposed by one of the members of the council and seconded by another.

              He pointed out that the controversial Article was nothing but a rewritten version of the draconian section 93 of the Government India, Act 1953. “We have proved Churchill’s observation that Indian are not fit to rule themselves” he said

             “What we now have is a situation where a Chief Minister of state has to make 10 to 20  trips to Delhi every month and the opposition demands imposition of President’s Rule rather than stake a claim to form a stable government. Article 356 must go. The commission must recommend its removal, for Article 352 and 356 are sufficient” he said.  

PEOPLES MUST KNOW

THE RETIREMENT DAYS: Book By R. B. Singh

POWERS OF GOVERNOR

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on October 17, 1993

    Shri Dharam Vira Governor of west Bengal dismissed Shree Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee from the Chief Ministership of West Bengal on Nov. 21, 1967 and dissolved his cabinet. He appointed Dr. P. C.  Ghosh, as Chief Minister of west Bengal and on his advice Shree Harendra Nath Majumdar and Dr. Ali Mullah as Ministers and sworn them the same evening. He summoned the legislature to meet on November, 29, 1967. When the Legislative Assembly met on the appointed day Shree Bijoy Kumar Banerjee, Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly gave the following ruling:

     “Honourable Members, this house meets under extraordinary circumstances. I am ‘prima facie’ satisfied that the dissolution of the Ministry headed by shree Ajo Kumar Mukherjee, appointment of Dr. P. C. Ghosh as Chief Minister and the summoning of this House on his advice is unconstitutional and invalid since it has been effected behind the back of this House. Pending a full and proper examination of the matter, in exercise of powers vested in me under Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure of this assembly, I adjourn the House ‘sine die’.

     The House will remember that when it was prorogued on august 3, the Council of Ministers was headed by the Chief Minister Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee and others. This was the Council of Ministers that was collectively responsible to this House in terms of Article 164(2) of the Constitution.

     “As I understand the constitutional position, the only authority competent to decide whether or not a Council of Ministers should continue in office of this House. A adverse vote against the Council of Ministers in this House necessarily leads to a position when that particular Council of Ministers no longer enjoys the Confidence of this House and hence it continuance in office would be a violation of Article 164(2) of the Constitution.

PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KNOW

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on October 6, 1993

There are difficult days, everyone is on te march with tremendous speed, Rajiv Gandhi Prime Minister of India used to talk of taking India to twenty first century but alas he is no more and talk of our march to twenty first century has ended; but our march towards it has not ended, we are daily marching towards it. In this march, we are coming across numerous hurdles, sometimes seem unsermountable. In between we hear the daily sermons coming from Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister Viswanath Pratap Singh and Chandra Shekhar, from Leader of opposition Atal Bihari Vajpayee and former Leader of opposition Lal Krishna Advani, state leaders Jyoti Basu, Biju Patnaik, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mulyam Singh Yadava    Continued ............................

GOVERNOR’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on September 28, 1993

     The exact working of the provisions of the Constitution of India is of extreme importance under the political conditions of the nation which is charged with all kinds of confrontations, between, centre and states, between states and states, between the President and Prime Minister, between the Governor and the Chief Minister in States.

     I would like to discuss the cases of confrontation between Governor and Chief Minister.

    The elements of usages and customs constitute a very important chapter in the study of the politics and constitution.

     The Governor, Chief Minister and Council of Ministers are known as Governor in Council.

     Article 167 of the Constitution of India reads.

     It shall be the duty of the Chief Minister of each State-

(a)      to communicate to the Governor of the States all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation;

(b)      to furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may call for; and

(c)       if the Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the council.

     It has generally been seen that the Chief Minister altogether ignore the Governors and try to deprive the Governors of the rights under Article 167 of the constitution of India; the Governor at the same time don’t care to execute their above right and have the information as provided in Article 167 of the constitution of India and issue directions, and a kind of friendship between the Governor and Chief Minister or confrontations and bickering develops between them instead of the constitutional relationship between them.

      A question arises, “what the governor should do if the Chief Minster wants to deprive the Governor of his rights under Article 167”.

     The Governor should assert is right, in a polite manner as is apparent from the following letter of Mr. Sunder Lal Khurana the Governor of Tamil Nadu to Mr. M.G. Ramachandran the Chief Minister of State, dated May 20, 1986:

 “My dear Chief Minister,

     Of late I find that I learn about the policy decisions through the newspapers. If legislation is involved, I know only when the Governor’ message is sought. Article 167 of the Constitution indicates the role of Chief Minister regarding the furnishing of the information to the governor. Article 166(3) says that the governor shall make rules for convenient transaction of the business of the state. Rule 35(2) gives the classes of cases that shall be submitted by the Chief Minister to the governor before the issue of the orders. Clause 2 of this rule lists the cases pertaining to the question of policy.

     Where change of policy or practice is involved the governor has to be kept informed. Even the minutes of the Council of Ministers relating to a meeting held on October 28, 1985, where received by me in March 1986. No meeting of the council of Ministers seems to have been held after December 3, 1985, except a meeting held on March 11, 1986, to consider the budget. None of the policy decision taken recently seemed to have been discussed in the Council of Ministers as visualized in Clause 16 of the Second Schedule of the Business Rules. You may examine this so that at major items of policy do come up before the Council of Minister and minutes are sent to me immediately thereafter as visualized in Article 167(1) of the constitution. Frequent contacts and frank exchange of views between the chief minister and the governor are the essence of the Constitutional requirements. I presume that you would have inferred that my role as head of the state has throughout been constructive and in the best interest of the state. Unfortunately in the recent past when a number of major decisions have been taken I find that I have been kept in the dark. I do hope that this position will be rectified.”

     The Chief Minister of the States should not try to overstep the Governor who is asserting his right under Article 167 of the constitution of India, but they should resort to process of cooperation for which they should write to the Governor exposing regret in a polite manner as is apparent from the following reply of Mr. M. G. Ramachandran the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to Mr. Sunder Lal Khurana the Governor of the State ten days later.

 “Dear Governor,

     I received your letter of May 20, 1986. I learn that you have not been informed about some of the decision taken recently. I have been under the impression that everything has been going on according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Business Rules. If there has been any omission, I feel, these could have been averted had I been properly advised by the chief secretary in such matters. I assure you that they are absolutely unintentional. The chief secretary and the senior official in the secretariat have, therefore, been instructed suitably to strictly adhere to the rules and procedures and the constitutional requirements that are already in vogue. I fully agree with you that the frequent meetings with the chief minister and the governor are very much imperative and useful in the interest of the state and I can assure you of my fullest cooperation in this regard. In fact, I have always deemed it a pleasure to meet you often and discuss with you all important matters. I am proud to say that in all the meetings I had with you, I felt as if I had met a personal friend from home. I have always got valuable advice and guidance. I have got the highest regard for you and great admiration for a constructive role you are playing as head of the state.”

     After which the Governor and Chief Minister cooperated in their working as friends as governor in council.

     In my humble opinion the Governor of other states too should exercise the Bagehot’s three rights, to advise, to warn and to be consulted of the British Monarch and send letters to the Chief Ministers, whenever they think that the chief Ministers are not exercising their powers in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and the laws which the Chief Minister would have to acknowledge and make amendments in them. The governor has the rights, in terms of his oath which he is administered by the Chief Justice of High Court before entering upon the office of the Governor, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the laws. 

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW

An article written by R. B. Singh that was originally published in Our Leader (Allahabad edition) on September 11, 1993

    A division bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Mr. M. N. Venkatachaliah, Chief Justice of India and Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy directed Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, that he should move an appeal before Madras High Court against the order of the single judge staying the proceedings before the Chief Election Commissioner for disqualifying Miss Jayalalitha, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. 

     The division bench also directed the High Court to dispose of the appeal to be filed by Dr. Swamy expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date of registration of the said appeal with the direction that the High Court should condone the delay in filing the appeal.

     The history of the dispute is that Miss Jayalalitha has shares in the Jaya publication, to which she had subscribed advertisements while holding the office of the Chief Minister of the state, as such Dr. Swamy had levelled the charge that she had violated the provisions of the Constitution of India and hence should be disqualified from continuing as an M.L.A.

     He filed a petition before Shree B. N. Singh, the Governor of Tamil Nadu to disqualify Miss Jayalalitha from holding office as M.L.A. Shree Singh the then Governor did not take any action on it for a long time. Then Dr. Swamy moved the High Court at Madras praying it to direct the Governor to take action, and refer the said petition to the Chief Election Commissioner for his action; who failed to accept the plea of Dr. Swamy, then he (Dr Swamy) moved to the Supreme Court with the prayer to direct the Governor of Tamil Nadu to refer his petition to the Chief Election Commissioner. On the date of hearing it was contended on the behalf of the Governor, that the Governor had referred the petition of Dr. Swamy to the Chief Election Commissioner and thus the matter was hushed up there.

     Miss Jayalalitha, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu filed a petition in Madras High Court that the Chief Election Commissioner T. N. Sehsan may be restrained from taking any action on the petition of Dr. Swamy as Dr. Swamy’s wife Mrs. Roxy Swamy is the counsel of Shree Seshan in a case and thus Dr. Swamy may be able to influence the C.E.C. Shree Seshan through his wife Mrs. Roxy Swamy.

     The said petition of Mrs. Jayalalitha was assigned to a single Judge of Madras High Court, who heard the counsels of the parties and others and restrained Shree Seshan from hearing the proceeding on the petition of Dr. Swamy.

     Against the order of the single Judge; Dr. Swamy filed the appeal before the Supreme Court which after hearing ordered him (Dr. Swamy) to file appeal before Madras High Court, directed the High Court to condone the delay and decide the said appeal within six weeks.

     Now the question arises, “Why Dr. Swamy filed appeal before the Supreme Court, when he had an opportunity of filling the special appeal before the High Court and getting redressal of his grievances” another question arises; “Whether Dr. Swamy was unaware of the provision of filing special appeal before moving the Supreme Court; “Whether it was knowingly or unknowing done”

     In my humble opinion as Dr. Swamy is not a lay man, but was a Professor in Harwad University and a Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs in the cabinet of Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar. It cannot be said that he was unaware of the fact of the filing of special appeal in the High Court. He had filed the appeal in the Supreme Court deliberately.

     If the Dr Swamy says that he was unaware of the said provision, it is horrible. One cannot expect that Dr Swamy, a former Law Minister would be so ignorant of the existing provisions in the laws of the land. Dr. Swamy is shinning as leader on Indian skies since the days of emergency, when he escaped from India to avoid arrest; performed the most  glamourous  task of coming to India during emergency, going to New Delhi, attending the Rajya Sabha, signing on the register, putting a question and then escaping from India, he had advocated the formation of a National Government at the centre after the resignation of Prime Minister Chandrasekhar on March 6, 1991, in which he did not succeed and the Lok Sabha was dissolved on March 13, 1991.

     Whatever, be the reasons, his going straight to the Supreme Court. Against the order of single Judge is highly deplorable.

     Everybody is very grateful to Chief Justice M. N. Venkatachallaiah and Mr. Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy of the division bench for their order referred above. The above judgement has reflected the concern of the two judges towards the ignoring of the provisions of law and justice by top most leader of India. In ordering Dr Swamy to file appeal before Madras High Court against the order of single Judge, the two judges have shown that none is above law and ever body would have to act within the four walls of the law, however strong and mighty he might be.

     It has tried to practice and show the old dictum, that the “Law may be the King but the King cannot be the law”

     The above judgment has shown us the way for the establishment of the rule of law in the country.

     Our minister and political leader have always tried to establish the supremacy of the executive, over the legislature and over the judiciary but this dictum is wrong. 

APPEAL TO THE VOTERS OF UTTAR PRADESH ASSEMBLY ELECTION 2012

Humble Request to the Voters of Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election 2012

उत्तर प्रदेश विधान सभा चुनाव २०१२ के मतदाताओ से विनम्र  अनुरोध

अपना वोट जरूर डाले

Must Cast Your Vote

Think carefully Before Vote

वोट देने से पहले ध्यान से सोचो 

सब कोई  मतदान करो 

मतदान करो,

मतदान करो,

मतदान करो,

सब कोई  मतदान करो, 

सब कोई  मतदान करो, 

भ्रस्टाचारी  और अपराधी,

न जीते,

न जीते,

सब कोई करे, 

यही सवाल,  

यही सवाल,  

सब कोई कहे,

कठिन  सवाल,

कठिन  सवाल,

जवाब केवल,

जवाब केवल,

एक और केवल एक,  

सब कोई  मतदान करो, 

सब कोई  मतदान करो, 

सोच समझकर मतदान करो,

जिसको चाहो  मतदान करो,

मगर सब कोई मतदान करो,

चाहे जितना जोर लगा ले,

भ्रस्टाचारी  और अपराधी,

मगर नहीं जीत सकता वो,

अगर सब कोई मतदान करो,

मतदान करो,

मतदान करो,

मतदान करो