Arvind Datar On Delimitation Federalism And Indias Constitutional Future

TITLE: Y93HA342PzQ CHANNEL: Unknown DATE: ---TRANSCRIPT--- Today we are here to discuss the report of the high level committee on center state relations sponsored by the Tamilad government. The report was prepared by a three-member committee presided by retired Supreme Court Justice Duran Joseph. It’s a massive document and covers 10 broad areas which concerns case across the country. To discuss some sections of the report, we’re privileged to have with us Mr. Arvind Da senior advocate supreme court and one of the leading constitutional lawyers in the country in fact he is in the course of completing the third edition his commentary on the constitution thank you Mr. data for joining us. Before we start our discussion on some of the individual segments of the report, I’d like to ask you the recommendations in this report are so vast almost like calling for a constitutional convention. Do you think that India needs convention, a new constitution after 70 years, a new major rethinking after 70 years? Yeah, thank you for inviting me on your popular platform to answer the question. I don’t think uh we require a rethink on the constitution. The constitution is absolutely fine. Some of the recommendations made in the Korean Joseph committee or the interstate committee are quite useful which can be thought of to be included in constitution. But this will just require a few amendments to few articles. there’s no need of an overall of the constitution at all and some recommendations may not be practical also but they have taken the trouble of going deep into the present positions and made some suggestions but I think the suggestions with relation relation to governors and article 36 are worth pondering and implementing

let us now go to the first area of the fact that we are going to discuss the one of constitutional amendments I’ll broadly set out the current position as of March 2026, we had 106 amendments to the constitution. There’s almost one and a half for every year of our existence. America’s at 27. So we obviously seem to make it simpler. There are three kinds of constitutional amendments. A simple majority one and one with a special majority where two/3s have to work and then a special majority require state ratification. Now the report proposed a significant change in all these things. Why don’t you elaborate and tell us about the changes and what you think the advantages of the changes are and perhaps some of the disadvantages of the changes are. Uh I strongly recommend for acceptance the suggestion made by the committee to make it difficult to amend the constitution to take away or a fundamental rights. In fact, uh, in 1965, the Supreme Court flagged this paradox where you could take away fundamental rights by a majority. But if you want to amend another article involving some state subject, you require the ratification of all the states. So something so precious as fundamental rights did not require ratification. So this was flagged by justice and he said that our fundamental rights the play things of the majority that’s the word just use play things of the majority so I think uh one recommendation which I’ve always thought necessary was fundamental right should become capable of being changed only by a three-fold majority so that they are insulated from changes by simple majorities today if parliament or a 500 seat has 3/4 majority or more than two/3 majority they can change important fundamental rights. So that recommendation of the Joseph committee or the interstate I I think I’ll call it the union state relations committee is worth including in the constitution questions like not only majority of two states but states with twothirds of the population which is completely new is that sensible no I I don’t think that is viable also they have recommended adding a clause to include that basic structure cannot be amended. That’s not necessary. It’s already part of the uh judgment. And uh they’ve also recommended that a constitution bill must be introduced three months in advance and should be subject to public consultation. That’s also is a good suggestion. But twothirds of the whole state etc will be not necessary. Also if I could ask you about the basic structure even if you wanted to bring how would you define it? You know I think in 1964 Justice Potter to a still in America that you know I can when I see pornography I recognize but I can’t define it in words. So it’s basic structure one of those things which you can see but not define and if you can’t define it how would you put it in the constitution? See this is a off-coded criticism of basic structure that it’s an undefined term. It is vague and so on. But I think that criticism is not valid. It is by people who don’t understand the basic principles of the con of constitutional law. In 1965 before Quesan Bharati came in the Sajjan Singh case Justice Budhulkar said that you see by 1965 the constitution had been amended 17 times. So as you put it it was almost one amendment per year and various uh rights had been taken away. So Mudhulkar just mudulkar said it’s time to press the pause button. How far can you go on amending the constitution? And he asked a very important question. Suppose in the constitution you take away the right to equality. You take away the right to life. You take away the right to free speech. Then can you call what remains a constitution at all of a republican democracy? Can you think of a constitution of a republican democracy that doesn’t have the right to free speech, right to life and right to equality? Then what is left? So he said where do you so he ironically referred to a Pakistan Supreme Court judgment and said there are certain essential features of the constitution you can’t touch. Then the question what are these essential features and just mudulkar very nicely says look to the preamble what are the essential features liberty equality fraternity social justice these are the essential features of the constitution so if you take that away equality liberty all parts of the basic structure and now one more thing bharati is now 53 years old the supreme court has laid down norms for basic structure and other thing is that it’s only on five or six occasions that a constitutional amendment has been struck down on basic structure. So by and large courts have supported the wisdom of the legislature of parliament in amending the constitution. It’s only on certain cases where they have said no you’re going too far and then they have struck it down. The last being the national commission. The uh very flexibility of this term is its strength. Like there is no definition of due process in the American constitution. But as years go by, we don’t know what will be necessary 10 years down the line, 20 years down the line. Though a concept which as you mentioned is easy to understand but difficult to define. It’s inability of definition may be its greatest strength. It can be molded to meet the necessities of generators. One of the suggestions made in this segment of the report concerns amendments that run out scores after 15 years and then run out. But the question is this important and useful is no longer available after 15 years. No, unless it’s reenacted that period there could be a very important amendment that is very useful that for political reasons cannot be reenacted. So we are then deprived of that amendment. Is that reasonable? I I I don’t think that is practical because how do you identify those propositions which are required after 10 to 15 years which are the suggestion is made that you make a list of provisions which require rethink every 10 years or every 15 years. Now take for example reservation. The first they said reservation should not last more than 10 years but you kept on continuing it indefinitely that they should cease to have. This is a practical suggestion of making a schedule and saying that out of 37 articles put 20 in some schedule which will be rethought of every 10 years. I don’t think it’s necessary. Let’s move to another segment of the report which is a bit of a hot potato which is the limitation. We know what theoretically delution is supposed to do. We know your views on delimitation and we know the report’s views. So tell us what is the overall suggestion in the report on how delimitation should go ahead. It’s supposed to go ahead in 20 the first election after 2026. That’s the original constitutional amendment. What do we what does this support suggest? see this uh because of shortage of time I can’t go into detail but the this committee suggests four options but please do amount of time this is a very important thing yes yes no this time because it’s a very important see I I have spent quite a lot of time thinking about this delimitation issue particularly because it’s now likely to start in 2026 very this year it is supposed to start as you know as you rightly put it has been frozen. The 1971 census has been frozen and effectively under article 81,82 etc. the seats of parliament are 550 and they will be see there is a time in fact go to the constituent assembly the mantra was 1 million electors for one seat in the assembly. So for every 1 million you have one representative. So if you go by that then we should have 1400 members in parliament 1 million per seat. Yeah. So that I don’t think is possible. Secondly see you you like Hugo said you can’t stop an idea whose time has come. There is also a flip side to this. There is also a time where this idea has to be buried once and for all. Now this delimitation at least in my personal view because of the existing politics because of the differences in population explosion south versus north divide as all of us know that if you impose delimitation now everybody in the country knows it’s going to impact the southern states very badly and it’s going to benefit the northern states. So virtually after some time you don’t need the southern state. They can the northern states can pass through any amendment without bothering about the southern state walls. That is not going to be acceptable. It may lead to serious social approvals and so on. I personally feel it is time to permanently freeze 550 seats once and for all. Like in the US you got the Senate has 50 members. So that’s the end of it. There is no question of whether population is 200 million or 400 million. You’re going to have more number of seats. That’s not going to happen. We’ll just keep 550 seats permanently. One thing and then you even if there are disproportion it’s all right for two reasons. One there are far more pressing problems which face the country now than getting into deal limitation. You’re going to have a huge social cost of getting into deal limitation. Secondly, if you really want to increase seats then as I suggested in my article keep the same proportion. If Tamil Nadu has 40 seats out of 550 then you make it 700 make it 800 make it thousand they will continue to have 40 to 50 the same proa proportion continues that will at least not be a ground to complain what I want to ask is what is the purpose in having if you’re going to have 800 members what how are you going to subserve the constitutional requirements because ultimately the role of the legislature is to make laws members of parliament to sit in parliamentary committee deliberate laws. How will 800 members going to improve the functioning of parliament? If you are not going to refer bills to par the uh parliamentary committees, if there’s not going to be proper debates in parliament, if there’s going to be this kind of disruption, I really don’t know what is the purpose will be served by having 800 members or 900 members. Number one. Number two, what is the additional cost of keeping 800 members? Housing for the members, allowances for the members with no benefit to the nation. That’s a slightly cynical view. But at this point of time, increasing it to 800, will it make any difference to the major problems we are facing in terms of employment, in terms of economic growth and so on and so forth? I think it’s a, as you said, it’s a hot potato. Better to keep this potato in cold storage. Just freeze it to 550 and be done with it. That’s my personal view. Or if you increase it then same promotion. The report suggests that the distribution be frozen until 2,26 or until the the fertility states converge. Now, now the question is that you know today, let me give you an example. Today the population of the southern states is about 27 cr and they have 129 seats. UP has a population of 24 cr and has 80 seats. If you look at the forecast the population in 8,126 UP will have 66% more in terms of population than the south because UP comes down slowly but the south comes down much faster and then still the south will more than so my question is that should one look at you written about the report talks about the raja sabha six seats per per state. Should the Rajya Sabha become more powerful like the Senate to remove this problem that we have of you know Lok Sabha being the dominant state. If the Raja Saga was as dominant as the US Senate then a six seat per state would much more resolve that problem then all this what you think of doing for 100 years holding up limitation because today the US house there are still there with one seat and there are two senators a senator so that if you make that house more powerful give it more financial parts then could that resolve the problem in some way? No, I don’t think so because you see we can’t adopt the American model. We have adopted the Westminster model and the Rajya Sabha is not exactly like the House of Lords but it’s like the state of elders. We had a bicameal legislation. The point I wanted to make was if you’re increasing the Lok Sabha seats then proportionately will increase Rajya Sabha as well. So the role of the Rajya Sabha is important because in certain bills the Rajya Sabha’s approval also is necessary except in finance bills it has to get the approval of the Rajya Sabha also. So I would suggest keep the same the current ratio of what Lok Sabha is to Raja Sabha. If you increase it keep that increasing on a proa basis. So that will not give any grievance to the southern states or and and that they are losing at the cross with the northern states and so on. You see because what’s happening is southern states as it is there’s a serious tension because of the delimitation because of language because of other reasons. So it’ll only exacerbate the rift between the north and the south. If you go down this delimitation path only on the basis of the number of people and 2020 2126 is a 100 years away. Who knows at what time PFR will come and what will happen. That’s too long a period. We we should I I for the sake of certainty because see once you put that problem away then you can focus on the other things which are bothering the nation. You see I I thought that we have now missed this bus of delimitation because of population and the four options many of them whichever option you take I studied these options for this interview this four options every option is riddled with so many problems you know if you take this option then there are so many minor signs so that becomes the issue. So I think ultimately the best thing is just keep the same thing going. If you’re increasing seats do on the same base let Tamadu Karnataka have the same proportion then there’s no problem and other difficulty delimitation is what happens to assemblies are you going to increase all the number of MLAs in every state you have to what will be the huge cost and is it worth it and you know I asked you know there is a body called PRS legislators who speaks you know in parliament I asked them to provide me data on the amount of speech of each MP I think half the MPs don’t speak at all so nor do they participate they vote that’s for sure they are what is called lobby fod up they just march in and press the button so I mean actually even a current size parliament the participation is very limited thanks to the manner in which the speaker handles the the the opposition and the government so a larger parliament won’t make any different. Just more seats, more money and you know more waste of time. Let us now go to another hot potato which you know I still want to freeze language. The report says we must abandon the one nation one language illusion. The three language formula is a profound policy filter. English must be the permanent official language of the union, the permanent link language, the union and entrench English permanently as the language for all constitution courts. Now that is what your export wants. Give me some pros and cons for that to how see we got to carry the rest of the country with us. So how do you think the rest of the country would react? What are the pros and cons of adopting this policy? this question of uh to put it problematic to make Hindi is the national language and everybody should learn Hindi etc. It is not going to happen without huge political upheavalss. In fact, the entire Tamil Nadu politics is based on the anti-Hindi platform and if you’re going to push it down, it’s going to lead even to violence and other serious consequences. We know what happened in the anti-Hindi riots which took place in the mid60s. Now as far as this question of putting pushing Hindi right through it is again going to be a serious setback if you push it through for the for the nation as such because it’ll lead to so many social problems political problems. Now one thing I have seen because I’ve been my wife works with an NGO which runs a lot of schools there is a huge demand for English medium instruction right the schools where the regional languages is the thing the admissions are declining many classrooms don’t have enough number of students because everybody wants English because that’s the way for upward mobility that’s the way to get into jobs and so on and so forth I think we must take a lesson from leon you when he first became prime minister the first decision he made was English should be the language of Singapore though you had Chinese Malay and Tamils he said if you are to come up in the world we have to have English so I think this question of each state downgrading English and ironically all the ministers shouldn’t go to the best possible English medium schools but the they insist on Tamil medium and Hindi medium and Marati medium and ironically like in Tamil Nadu for the free midday meal scheme only if you’re studying in Tamil medium you get the midday which is ridiculous. Why not a poor boy studying English media? So to answer to your question on this language issue, I think there should be a national policy of promoting English with the regional language and those who want to study Hindi will study. You see when I was young I mean I was in in Madras at that time many of us many people joined Hindi prachar Sabha because if you want to appear for the civil services exam if you want to get into a central service knowledge of Hindi is important. So today if I feel Hindi is going to be necessary for me to get into the civil services or to get into a national thing, I will automatically study Hindi. Don’t make it compulsory. When you make it compulsory, there’s a backlash. So let’s just leave it to the local population. Let them read English and their local language and Hindi can be an optional subject. That’s the long-term solution. I think you know let’s look at the country as a whole. We only have the 2011 census so far. As for that census, if you look at the four the five southern states, around 15% have knowledge of English as the first, second or third language. If you look at the five largest north Indian states, they are at three and a half% in terms of knowledge of English as first, second or third language. You know, we do a fair amount of election work. So we go to rural areas they say convent school there but there is no none and there is no teacher who knows any English I mean how do we get enough teachers of English language get people in the north I mean it can’t happen tomorrow 30 40 years get them to a level of where they feel they can compete because now everything that matters nationally is done in English so the question is how do we organ is that what does the government do to provide help to people who go to schools as you’re absolutely right most people now don’t go to government schools they go to private schools private schools that say they’re teaching English the quality of the teaching is terrible versus the south where they’ve been teaching it for years and the quality is much better so would that the north is a terrible startage how do we resolve that issue as you rightly put it is a serious problem which admits of no short-term solution but as you put it that see that’s why now I was told the civil services exam you can now write it in your local language you can write the civil services is exam I’m told in Hindi also I’m I don’t know how far that’s correct but because you don’t know English you now make it convenient to do it in Hindi and what happens to an officer who comes to uh southern states if he doesn’t know English I’ll also tell you in many of the uh northern states in the district judiciary they speak only the regional language there’s no knowledge of English at all so if that district judge is going to become a high court judge how is he going to deliver judgments rightly or wrongly the language of the courts is English under the constitution though the language is Hindi under the official languages act English is to continue to be the but English is not an official language under the schedule you see ironically so I think that on a language issue though this person recommends English and thing. I think we should make it let the northern states start. The southern states had English the northern states can catch up in five to 10 years but English must be given as an option there. And in northern states many of the people who can afford it they go to a private school where English is taught. You see a a person pay sometimes a substantial part of his salary just in paying the school fees. So the child can go to an English medium school. I’m not talking about quality of teaching but at least but you know they are as far behind English as the south is in Hindi you know really they’re really struggling in the north in so long time for them to catch up that also has a link with the higher per capita income of the southern states I don’t know if English is a correlation but more upward mobility more jobs in the IT sector more jobs in various companies will go to the people from the southern states require knowledge of English. Yeah. And I think as a national policy go now to the another I think all are hot potatoes elections the subject of elections. How do we how do we produce the report suggests that uh there should be a state election commission for each state then there should be treat how defector should be treated. Give us your views on how defectors you know state election commission my views that just the way the if the state election commission is appointed the way the central elections commission appointed we’d have as much unfairness there as here actually in the supreme court judgment justice chand suggested the manner in which the women election commission should be appointed because the government neglected those actually there is nobody from civil society like on the information commission there are members of civil society there’s nobody in civil society so how do we I mean are you do you think that allowing a state government to appoint the state election commission will give us any better results than the ones that we are getting now I think there’s no better person to comment on election than yourself because you’ve been covering elections for so many years and I’ve been watching your TV programs for so many years I feel that this suggestion of having separate state election commission is not a feasible solution at all because I don’t know if the by putting state election commission you’re going to have a more independent robust body I don’t think so it may may make matters worse so I think state election commission separately should not be there the larger problem which I feel which is the is the defection is the issue of defections and the issue of freebies freebies. See, because under the uh representation of people act, any gift or inducement is a bribe and is a ground to an election. But if the promises made by a party, it’s not a bribe. So I think that the biggest visiating factor at the election stage now are these freebies which have completely visiated elections. In many cases they have been the game changanger unfortunately with ruinous consequences to the state extractor state finances. I’m told in some states between 40 to 48% of the entire money goes off in these distribution of freebies. So there is no money for capital expenditure for growth. that point we must I lost the case in the Supreme Court in the case Subra Balaji where the Supreme Court asked the election commission that can you ban free and ironically the election commission said if all the parties agree we’ll ban freeze which is like never going to happen so I feel that the election commission or parliament must first of all say that completely ban these financial incentives of free gas free this you can have basic food because anyway you got food security is there why do you require any more freebies Number one. Secondly, on anti-defectionection, the 10 schedule requires a major overhaul. You see, because no matter what you seem to do, the members of parliament or MLA seem to gain the system. One is one they they try to plug it by defection. Then Karnataka had the idea of mass resignation. See, so again, you subvert the system. Then if out of 20 people, if two/3 shift completely, then it is not a defection. So studying this problem and the other worst thing is that the speaker is supposed to be an impartial person but unfortunately the two constitutional function is speakers and governors have really not their function as per the constitution speaker is not impartial we know that I’ve not seen a single case of a speaker being impartial at all maybe malwankar was there in the beginning I don’t know now but at that time but that’s one thing I think that Once you stand on say party X ticket then no change should be permitted at all in your file term you resign you stay out no question of members of party X two/3s getting together and joining party Y that should be completely stopped secondly how do you talk how do you recognize the split within a party like what happened in the issue that’s another question which the constitution doesn’t have an answer so so I think we’ll have to make amend the 10 schedule so that there is no question of changing from party X to party Y at all at any point of time not 2/3 not three once you stand on party X ticket for that 5year term if you want to change you just resign and you cannot contest elections for the next remaining term of the that particular assembly then you stand whatever it is that could be a possible feature I don’t know what are your views on whether that will really curb let me just for you two examples have taken place in the last one month in Tamil Nad 506 ADMK emulators resigned. Example one in Bengal a vast majority of TMC members formed themselves into another party and the speaker is recognized one of the members as the leader of the opposition. Now how do you think these two examples one if five members just resigned they didn’t defect they resign how would you treat these two I I think the ten schedule should amend that that once you have elected on let’s say just to take the name on AIDM ticket then you cannot change your party you cannot resign if you resign you no longer a member of the house you’re gone that will be for a bi-election which the party can stand again but you can’t simply resign no Yeah. And like this question of forming a faction within a party, I can’t fight the same seat on a TV ticket. No, you can’t. You can’t in the bi-election. So, you can’t be represented at all. Yes. Once you choose, once you’re elected by You can’t stand for bi-election. You can’t stand for bi-election at all because what you have betrayed the trust of the people who voted you. They voted you on the AIK ticket. Now, you have decided to resign. So, that should be a deterrent. Otherwise, I will resign and I will stand. for the term of that five years. So I think you can add so you’re saying that five years I cannot stand again at all. No there’s another that concerns me as you know MLAs are not allowed to hold office or profit. Now if I were I were to resign and be thrown out as a MLA, the government could appoint me chairman of the state textile commission, the state transport commission and all the other state commissions and I can make as much money as I want to. I was making much less than I’m making more now. Is that okay? But should they have nothing to do with anything with which the state has a control to defect for five years? You have to suffer a little. Yes, I agree with your suggestion that there should be uh no indirect benefit that you resign. Okay. You can’t be a member of uh the assembly but I’ll reward you with being the chairman of the state transport commission or I’ll reward you with so-called lucrative posts as they call it and you make your money there completely. They should be banned. So you take your election seriously once you stand on party X and if you win then you have to be with that party if you resign then for the rest till 2029 or till 2031 you don’t you can’t stand for any election at all and do you think that office of profit research should also apply to sitting MLAs that if I’m an MLA who’s not a minister and you make me the chairman of the transport state transport body because look at Maharashtra I don’t know what every ML chairman of something one thing or the other. So is that of profit? In fact there was some some system of getting some parliamentary secretary they tried to nominate them as part that also supreme court struck it down. You can’t indirectly do that because they wanted to get over the minister kota you can’t have more than 15% ministers to get it over they indirectly tried to do it you know Mr. Subarana the point is ultimately the statement of ambidkar is Dr. Kedkar is so important. On the last day he said that there is no such thing as a good I mean however well the constitution you should draft if the people who administer a while are wicked then nothing can be done by anybody. That was a beautiful statement he said. He said ultimately it all depends on you can have a bad constitution worked by good people but if a good constitution is worked by bad people look at what’s happening in 10th schedule from the guy every little point it has not been successful and look at the sad spectacle you take 40 MLAs you take them to some fivestar hotel then you take away the cell phones they’ll not be accessed by anybody it’s a shameful thing you know it’s a shameful thing you mean your own MLAs are taken away to some hotel so nobody can poach them. It’s very sad state of affairs. Very sad state. And then you are talking of having more. Let us now move to the last subject. Your favorite and my favorite of governors. What does the report say about the governors and what she thinks is the right thing to do? The governor issue has to be examined in the context of the presidential reference as well. uh what the one good suggestion which this uh committee has made is adding a 13th schedule in the constitution which contains a list of instructions or I would put it dos and don’ts of the governor this is really paradoxical because governors are supposed to be people with gravitas people with elder statesmen who don’t need to be told what is to be done I mean you you can tell a income tax officer or a civil servant you can’t do this you can’t but at the level of the governor the vice president the president it is expected that he has that much of responsibility sense of nationalism that he doesn’t need to be told but unfortunately the governors have been completely partisan not just now for the last 30 40 years this question of uh governors has been very unfortunate so one good thing will be to put written on the 30 schedule. It’s there’s certainty number one because you find that governors in states where the ruling parties there are different from the governors in opposition states like say in Tamil Nadu what happened for 24 months the bill was not even ascented to 12 bills were just kept pending without being ascented to and then that led to the controversy whether there can be a time limit. It went to a presidential reference and they said no there cannot be time limit but they said if it is uh [snorts] prolonged unexplained and under what they use they can interfere isn’t 24 months prolonged and unexplained. So what was wrong with putting a time limit of 3 months and uh see sir if it’s a simple bill it you can appro ascend it in 48 hours or 24 hours if it’s a complicated bill then you may want to examine its repugnancy how far it clashes with central law but it doesn’t take more than 30 days to do that 3 months is an outer limit and the [clears throat] governor the central government itself said ministry of home affairs said 3 months should be the outer time limit that’s what the ministry said so what wrong with this time limit. The report suggests that there should be people of integrity etc. which is fair enough. But they also say that they should have just one 5-year term and nothing thereafter which I think is a fairly good idea that you know you’re not looking forward to anything nor have you been associated that he must do nothing in his discretion. Nothing. So why do we have to go through this? No. the governor of Maharashtra here we have a legislative council and there are the chief minister can nominate I think 12 members he sat on it for three years and so the question I follow up the question is that do we need governors no another country like India which is a parliamentary democracy in states like us is Germany in Germany the central government has a president but the states have no government why what does the governor do. I mean, what what do you think he does that we could miss out on if he wasn’t there? Actually, technically speaking, the governor has no role except would be there. The soldiers would Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You’re right. I mean, that will require money. I I don’t know whether Yeah, please go ahead. You know, there was a man called Mr. Bishad who was a member of the constituent assembly he used to be prime minister 1935 act he said that to Dr. Ambedkar that you know these guys you don’t seem to only work for them they cost a lot of money you could pay them a salary why have them should talk to listen to him yes maybe maybe but uh sir that will require a major constitutional change and the report doesn’t say abolish governor they say you continue the governor system but some checks and balances but even the checks and there are so many things in the report that require constitutional amendment the first section is full of amendments then you know should there not be a debate at least the the governor’s necessary because they don’t seem to do anything useful as far as I can see no actually the point is one who recommends president’s rule then suppose you don’t have a governor who recommends president’s rule then say for example the power of pardon who decides the power of pardon thirdly state law is going to conflict with the center then the if you don’t have a governor then the state assembly can pass any law then it has to be checked in the court. So the governor does have some important constitution roles. I would not argue for a complete abolition of the governor’s post because there are constitutional functions which he has to do which at article 2001 and yeah but you know when the governor when government falls under 356 or whatever it is then there is central rule imposed that rule actually is the rule of the central government. So is there any way in which at least to ensure that when there’s central government rule that it doesn’t become the rule of the central government versus that of the party there’s lost the confidence of the house because currently the central government just takes over. So should there be some set out there where the current the current dispensation is not completely out of a new dispensation which is having policy but the purpose of central rule is not to impose central policy is to wait for a few months until the new government is elected. See, but now that has been checked by the Bombay judgment. If you just indiscriminately impose president’s rule is subject to judicial review and so on. But I I would not argue with agree with you that governor post should be abolished. Maybe because in the if it’ll in my in my opinion seriously uh put the constitutional architecture into jeopardy. You see because there is a rule there’s a president then there is a governor and there is president and parliament governor and assemblies. So they have a role to play. I I can’t think of a constitution without a governor. That will be too radical a change. I think instead of going down that path, we can have a situation where now that the governors don’t know their constitutional obligation, put it in writing. A bill will be passed in 3 months. You’ll do this, you’ll do that. So just put it in writing as the committee said in the 13th schedule. That is a salutary provision and the system can continue. So and the point is all over the country, you know, the bill has to be done in 60 days. So whether it’s Megallaya or Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra once the bill is given to the governor in 60 days he takes a decision we know that or you can put if in 60 days it doesn’t do anything is deemed to be passed so that’s we have now discussed all the subjects we at the end would you like to sum up your opinions on the report overall three minutes sum up on the report what you think what you think is a good thing bad thing one thing is uh one thing I must say is that a lot of study has gone into the report they must be commended for the hard work they have done some very novel suggestions have come and I think it is exactly this which is the part of a important democracy new ideas are thrown up you debate them discuss them wherever they are useful you implement them where it’s not practical you don’t do so and talking union state I think this is the uh third attempt you had the saria commission then you had the punchi commission then you had this committee also you also had a side committee of echala committee on working of the constitution but this committee’s report I think merits debate and discussion just because it is uh instituted by the tabernad government is not a ground to completely discard it may have been promoted by opposition rule states but it is headed by a supreme court judge they have considered so many submissions representations and so on and I think that it should be debated in parliament is my view this this particular report I think That is the end of the interview. Thank you very much Mr. Dar for joining us. It has been a great privilege and we are delighted to have you. Thank you very much. Thank you. It was lovely talking to you. All the best.