A legislative foray into executive power?

In the past, Parliament has seen many a confidence motion on political as well as non-political issues, but never before has a treaty — stemming from the country's foreign policy — been central to a trust motion, which the Manmohan Singh government moved in the House on Monday. The capacity to enter into a treaty with another country, conferred on the Centre by Article 73 of the Constitution, falls squarely under the sovereign executive power that requires no ratification by Parliament. So, by making the India-US nuclear deal the core issue of the motion, is the PM setting a precedent that henceforth, even treaties should get a stamp of approval from Parliament? And, would this step to seek trust vote on a matter that fell squarely within the foreign policy realm erode the sovereign executive power, which the Centre has enjoyed under Article 73 of the Constitution unhindered since the blue book came into force on January 26, 1950? The fears don’t impress constitutional experts, who are unanimous that though treaties entered into by the government don’t need ratification by Parliament, the latter is entitled to debate and discuss any such bilateral agreement if its contents affect the nation vitally. Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee and constitutional experts K K Venugopal and Rajeev Dhawan said the Manmohan Singh government's move reflected the supremacy of Parliament when it came to matters of national importance, treaty or no treaty. Dhawan, however, threw up an interesting question — Why did the government put its neck on the line along with the treaty by moving a confidence vote, when it could have sought the mandate of the House on the treaty alone? Sorabjee said, "Even though the Constitution may not require Parliament to ratify the treaty, there is no bar on the House or majority members thereof to seek accountability from the government on important issues which are central to a treaty." "It isn't necessary for the government to seek ratification of a treaty from Parliament, but keeping in view the importance and consequences of the deal it would only be prudent to put it before Parliament. It would not amount to erosion of the executive treaty making power of the government." Venugopal doesn’t think that there is any constitutional or legal impediment for a government to seek Parliament's view on an issue as important as the N-deal. "All issues which affect the nation can legitimately be debated in Parliament. The fact that a treaty, unlike in the US, need not be ratified by Parliament doesn't mean that it's beyond the scope of debate and discussion in Parliament. In this case, the government itself volunteered to move a trust motion on this issue and the matter is beyond the pale of controversy." Dhawan said, "The government committed harakiri by moving a trust motion on the N-deal. It could well have put the deal on debate and put it to vote. If the majority had okayed it, then the government could have gone ahead. But by moving a trust vote on the treaty, the government has put its neck on the line along with the fate of the deal." By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

"Loved reading this piece by Ms. Bobby Anand?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group