R. Venkataraman: President

“I, however, saw substance in the plea that the defeated ruling party should not be asked to form the Ministry as it had forfeited the mandate of the people. But I also saw the danger of vesting discretion without objective criteria in the President. While the monarchy in Britain is hereditary and unconnected with parties, the President of India is elected by the majority party and his actions could be partisan or liable to be questioned as partisan. On the other hand, if he followed strictly the criterion of calling the largest party, he would avoid the charge of partisanship. Besides, the President would not be able to play politics by calling a party other than the largest on the basis of his subjective assessment that such a party, in his opinion, was capable of providing a stable government.”

R. Venkataraman

His assessment when the Congress Party headed by Rajiv Gandhi had lost the elections (in November 1989) but was still the largest party.
Source: Commissions and Omissions by Indian Presidents and Their Conflicts with the Prime Ministers Under the Constitution: 1977-2001, p. 153.

People , Question

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

The Rediff Interview/R Venkataraman

“I ruled out any discussions on the subject [on the constitutional issue of raising any issue on the exchange of letters between Prime Minister and the President, in the Parliament], upholding the principle of confidentiality of communication between the President and the Prime Minister …a significant constitutional precedent.”

R. Venkataraman

Source: Commissions and Omissions by Indian Presidents and Their Conflicts with the Prime Ministers Under the Constitution: 1977-2001, P.128.

Communication

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

The Rediff Interview/R Venkataraman

Country

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

The Rediff Interview/R Venkataraman

Decision , Housing

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

On the issue of Constitutional right - if Constitutionally was it right of the President not to give the Cabinet recommendation.
The Rediff Interview/R Venkataraman

Decision

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

Source: Commissions and Omissions by Indian Presidents and Their Conflicts with the Prime Ministers Under the Constitution: 1977-2001, P.127.

“Outside support has always been a danger for the smooth working of the governments. If the President assertively persuades the parties concerned extending outside support to join the government, then such type of most unfortunate situations could have been avoided. If Rajiv Gandhi’s party had joined this government, this crisis would not have occurred.”

R. Venkataraman

When Congress Party withdrew outside support to Chandra Shekar who had to resign having lost majority in the House
Source: Commissions and Omissions by Indian Presidents and Their Conflicts with the Prime Ministers Under the Constitution: 1977-2001, p. 170.

Support

“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.”

R. Venkataraman

His opinion On the decision of President K R Narayanan's returning the Cabinet recommendation on imposition of central rule in Uttar Pradesh (UP).
The Rediff Interview/R Venkataraman

People , Confidence , Decision , Housing