Kashmiri has a proverb for the person who tips five kilograms of rice into a saucepan built for one. 

‘Muntinie Leiji Paanzu’ describes someone who takes on a burden, a role or an authority far beyond what his vessel can hold, and it came to mind during the recent controversy in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. 

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had moved a resolution seeking restoration of statehood, and the Speaker had admitted it. The Law Secretary and the Chief Secretary then reportedly wrote to the Assembly Secretariat opposing its consideration on the ground that the subject was sub judice. 

The Chief Minister, who also holds the Law portfolio, told the House that he knew nothing of the Law Secretary’s opinion and nothing of the Chief Secretary’s letter to the Speaker.

The Assembly eventually passed the resolution, which settles the politics and sharpens the institutional puzzle. 

Whether the officers favoured the resolution is beside the point, and so is the correctness of their view on sub judice, at least for now. What needs an answer is who authorised two officers to approach the Speaker against a resolution their own Chief Minister had moved. 

That puzzle lies at the foundation of parliamentary government.

A Secretary owes his Minister candour. A Law Secretary who finds a proposal legally defective is bound to say so, and a Chief Secretary who foresees constitutional or administrative trouble may place his concerns on record. 

He may write on the file that the resolution could fall afoul of the rule on sub judice subjects, recommend reconsideration, ask that the question go to the competent authority, even advise strongly against proceeding. 

Advice of that kind is the working substance of a civil service. Once the political executive decides otherwise, however, the Secretary has no independent route into the legislative sphere to tell the Speaker that the resolution should wait. 

Advising the Government and assuming its authority are different acts.

The Supreme Court drew this line in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831. A seven-Judge Bench described how parliamentary........

© Kashmir Observer