I had just returned from an official trip to Botswana in my capacity as Vice President of India about one year before President Zail Singh’s term was scheduled to end. That was when I first received a hint from Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi that he intended nominating me as the Congress party’s candidate for the high office of the President of India.
President of India from 1987 to 1992
Ramaswamy Venkataraman (Tamil: இராமசுவாமி வெங்கட்ராமன் December 4, 1910 – January 27, 2009) was an Indian lawyer, Indian independence activist and politician who served as a Union minister and as the eighth President of India.
From: Wikiquote (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Native Name:
ராமசுவாமி வெங்கட்ராமன்
Alternative Names:
Ramaswamy Venkataraman
From Wikidata (CC0)
Coalition: If the political developments in the country have created a situation like this, then it is for the country to decide whether they should have this Constitution or frame something which will take care of such situations. But as the Constitution stands, we cannot ask the President to do many things. The Constitution as framed is inadequate to deal with situations of the kind that have risen since the framing of the Constitution.
When we framed the Constitution, we adopted the British model. Therefore, the President acts as the crown. You see, Britain has no written constitution. So, there is nothing unconstitutional there. But in India we have a Constitution and any legislation even by Parliament contrary to the Constitution is void. As the Constitution now exists, the President has to follow the British precedent in many matters. Unfortunately, there is no British precedent in this matter.
There are two things to remember. If the President is asked to do something against the Constitution, the mere fact that the Cabinet has reiterated its earlier decision may not be binding on him. If it is an administrative matter, then the reaffirmation of the earlier decision by the Cabinet will, of course, be binding. But no government and no Cabinet can ask the President to do something that is unconstitutional. So, this line of distinction will have to be drawn.
The House has the power to take action including suspension against those people who are indulging in violence. Again, the House has passed the vote of confidence and the decision of the House cannot be thwarted by the unruly conduct of a few people. The President's returning the proclamation is both constitutionally correct and praiseworthy.
In my opinion, the Union Government's decision to impose President's rule in UP is flawed. That some members of the House indulged in violence and unruly behaviour does not warrant the conclusion that the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
I will have to speak for my candidature versus Justice Krishna Iyer's. That in itself will be unpleasant. But more importantly when the country is plagued by so many divisions, what is the point of a future Rashtrapati, going about dividing the country's Presidential vote...? Let the electoral college decide on the basis of its knowledge of the candidates and a reading of the situation … I will keep quite.