President Kalam Saves India

[Guest guest]

Whose inner voice?

 

Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi

 

 

Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister

because her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did

this "voice" speak now, despite her being elected Congress

Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support

from all allied parties?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that

could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of

the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.

 

 

 

Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her

eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her

children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by

President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The

President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her

candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is

believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points

regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so,

he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by

legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha

election results.

 

 

 

That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only

after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the

President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she

did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for

the meeting, contrary to custom.

 

 

 

According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed

to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised,

he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly,

there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date

unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed

by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.

 

 

 

Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the

basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could

have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to

have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain

queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a

discussion on Government formation.

 

 

 

On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party

leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any

person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and

the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional

experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from

Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The

BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support

any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.

 

 

 

The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought

relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person

shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member

of either House of Parliament" on any or more of five possible

grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is under any

acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state".

 

 

 

The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi

in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli

parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral

property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the

country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say,

makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be

interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country. Since this portion

of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her

father in his will, she inherited it only after his death.

Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed her 1999

nomination affidavit.

 

 

 

Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a

member of either House of Parliament has become subject to

disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be

referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be

final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving any decision on

such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the

Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."

 

 

 

This means that the President is required by the Constitution to

undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and

constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could

not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.

 

 

 

Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the

Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision

whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is

circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon

foreigners seeking citizenship there.

 

 

 

The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of

foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through

registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy

more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity

is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular

country.

 

 

 

While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal

luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the

issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that

while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she

surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New

Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian

Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.

 

 

 

This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few

days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of

the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.

 

 

 

Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma

Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed

Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the

fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even

marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post.

How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear

button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know.

 

 

 

What could have prevented Sonia?

 

 

 

Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be

disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either

House of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement

of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state." Sonia Gandhi, in her

affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus

invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision.

 

 

 

Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the

issue who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the

Election Commission.

 

 

 

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity

clause for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen,

says the said person could not enjoy more rights than those

available to an Indian born person in that other country if he/she

acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance.

 

 

 

The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met

when Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship.