The exit polls seem to confirm what the opinion polls had predicted ""that the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies will be the single largest bloc in the new Lok Sabha, though slightly short of a majority. How far short must remain a matter of speculation until the actual results are available, later this week. But it seems likely that the President is going to be faced with a ticklish question. If the BJP and allies are short of a majority, and if (for instance) the United Front says it is willing to back a Congress-led government which then claims that it has greater support than the BJP, whom should the President invite to form the government?
The issue is a touchy one, and comes in the wake of some avoidable controversy that has already focused attention on the President. For one thing, Mr Narayanan departed from set tradition by exercising his vote. As a citizen, he is certainly entitled to do so, but as President it is his duty to be completely impartial, and to be seen as such. Mr Narayanan might have been well advised, therefore, if he had been told that his duty in this instance should take precedence over his right.
The second issue which focused attention on the President was the business of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. There were demands that the President dismiss Romesh Bhandari, and then leaks to the press indicating that Mr Narayanan had in fact suggested this to the Prime Minister. The leaks themselves became a matter of debate because communications between the head of state and head of government are naturally guided by complete confidentiality. In the event, it is just as well that Mr Narayanan felt that he could act in the matter only on the advice of the council of ministers.
More From This Section
The third set of events focusing on the President, involved his denial of permission to prosecute former Central ministers Sheila Kaul and Satish Sharma. This is one of the very few circumstances in which the President exercises his personal discretion (another is when he has to decide whom to invite to form the government), and it is a pity that the President did not consider it a better course of action to let the guilt or innocence of the former ministers be tested and decided in court.
Against the backdrop of these events, the President is going to have a difficult time determining the best course of action once the counting of votes is done. It is now more or less established precedent that the leader of the single largest party is invited to prove his or her majority in the Lok Sabha, and this is what S D Sharma did in 1996. But Mr Sharma had been criticised for not waiting for a letter from the Congress, declaring support for a government led by the UF. In the event, the BJP was unable to win the confidence of the House, and the UFs Prime Minister did. Was Mr Sharma right or wrong? And should Mr Narayanan follow his example? On balance, the answer is yes "" because if the leader of the largest party does not have a majority in the Lok Sabha, it will be evident soon enough. But it would be best to have this tested faster than in 1996, to minimise the ever-present danger of horse-trading.