With the letter from the prime minister to the President stating that the government's decision in regard to the telecoms tangle is in order, another episode -- the third -- involving the two constitutional functionaries has come to an end. Those who speak for the President have justified his actions on the ground that a government which does not have a Parliament to scrutinise its actions and which, moreover, is a "carry-on business" government, ought not to take decisions which involve large sums of money or major changes in national policy.
Constitutional purists, on the other hand, have taken the view that the Constitution does not provide for anything like a caretaker government and the present government is therefore justified in acting like a full-fledged government, regardless of other material facts. In between these extreme positions is an entire spectrum of views, the sum total of which leaves the controversy unresolved.
There is, however, a need to resolve it speedily because a guide for future action is req