Uttarakhand aftermath: To nix revolts, parties find ways to bypass Cabinet cap

NEW DELHI: As the central Congress leadership scrambles to save its government in Manipur from meeting the same fate as that of Uttarakhand, the spotlight is back on the unintended and diverse consequences of a well-intentioned rule that caps the size of ministries at the Centre and in states. Amendment to the Constitution which introduced Article 164 (1A) restricted the size of the council of ministers in the Union and state government to not more than 15% of the total strength of the Lower House --the minimum strength of council of ministers in case of smaller states being 12. Ironically , the amendment was meant to be a check on 'politics of patronage' with unlimited ministries on offer, while ensuring that efficiency and good governance remained the focus.

But it has now triggered a debate whether, as in the recent cases of Arunachal and Uttarakhand, the law is a double-edged sword. Arunachal's Congress CM Nabam Tuki found it difficult to fulfil the aspirations of his 47 MLAs after accommodating 12 in his cabinet. Again in the case of Uttarakhand, where the government anyway had a razor thin majority , the resentment of MLAs like Vijay Bahuguna, who was first replaced as CM and later denied a Rajya Sabha seat, played a crucial role in fanning dissidence in the party ranks.

Subhash Kashyap, chairman of Venkatachaliah Commission which recommended capping the size of ministry at 10% of the strength of the Lower House, says the purpose of the cap stands defeated since political appointments have gone up manifold. “The government accepted recommendation of capping ministers although increasing it to 15% but cap on ministerial ranks was not even considered,“ he says.

At a time when politics is about patronage, keeping one's flock together is directly proportional to allurements on offer for the winning candidates, prompting parties to come with measures which act as insurance against instability . One way of doing so is what the Raghubar Das government achieved shortly after coming to power in Jharkhand in 2014.It succeeded in splitting Babulal Marandi's JVM-P and quickly recruited two of the six defectors into his Cabinet.

The other option has been the controversial appointment of parliamentary secretaries--MLAs who are ministers in all but name. Congress, which has just 36 members in a House of 68 in Himachal Pradesh has nine chief parliamentary secretaries. In 2015, the HC questioned the Uttarkhand government on the appointment of 12 MLAs as parliamentary secretaries and allocation of Cabinet rank and facilities to them allegedly in violation of Constitutional norms.

The Delhi government--limited to having just seven ministers by the National Capital Territory Act of Delhi, 1991--has at present 21 parliamentary secretaries.No previous government in Delhi had more than three parliamentary secretaries.

Constitution experts in the past have challenged the concept of parliamentary secretaries, pointing out that no central act or assembly rule has any provision for it.

Though as is clear from Manipur CM Ibobi Singh's predicament, the mere appointment of parliamntary secretaries is no guarantee of keeping your government safe.