ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/ Tomazinho Cardoz

'If they feel I am a misfit, let them remove me'

The man, even his worst critics concede, is an excellent script writer. And a brilliant director. But Goan Speaker Tomazinho Cardoz neither wrote nor lent guidance to the latest political drama that unfolded in the state assembly, when 10 Congress legislators, under current Chief Minister Dr Wilfred de Souza, split from the ruling party to form a new coalition government.

Cardoz, instead, stood referee to the Great Goan Drama, in the process joining the small group of speakers against whom the law has passed strictures.

His opponents too agree that Cardoz was not the stage-manager. A mere referee he was, they admit, but definitely not an unbiased one.

Indeed, the Opposition charges, he and then chief minister Pratapsingh Rane worked together in trying to unseat Dr de Souza and his Goa Rajiv Congress.

Soon after the revolt while the session was on, Cardoz passed an order restraining 10 GRC members from entering the House -- this, when Governor retired lieutenant general J F R Jacob had asked Rane to seek a confidence vote.

Taking serious note of the role Cardoz played in helping Rane win the confidence trial, and the conflicting reports of division vote he sent to the Raj Bhavan when actually no such voting had taken place, the governor dismissed the Congress government, hurriedly installing Dr de Souza as new chief minister late one night.

Whereupon Cardoz passed another order disqualifying all the 10 GRC members -- including the chief minister, eight cabinet ministers and the deputy speaker -- on the eve of the day Dr de Souza was supposed to seek a confidence vote!

The Panaji bench of the Bombay high court, however, stayed the disqualification, observing that the order was 'hasty'. Later, 40 days after Dr de Souza was installed, the high court in its final judgment quashed the order, clearing the major hurdle for the chief minister to win the vote of confidence.

The high court accused Cardoz of bias, acting in 'partisan manner' with mala fide intentions, 'abandoning fair play', and violating 'principles of natural justice'.

Cardoz, however, is not ready to let the matter rest. He is now planning to intervene in the Supreme Court hearing -- the Congress has challenged the high court orders -- through his lawyer, basically to get the allegations made against him struck off.

Even as the ruling alliance plans to remove him from the speaker's post, Sandesh Prabhudesai spoke to this artistically-tempered teacher turned politician -- he has written 17 books and is known all through Goa for his remarkable role in providing a new direction to tiatr, the traditional Konkani theatre -- at his Candolim home.

How do you look at the 40-day episode and the high court strictures against you?

I am still convinced about my action of disqualifying the members. My ruling was as per the letter and spirit of the 10th schedule of the Constitution of India. I have not interpreted it wrongly. I had no bias of any kind in my mind.

Do you mean to say the Bombay high court order that set aside your disqualification is wrong?

Well, being a constitutional authority, it is not fair on my part to pass any comment on another constitutional authority, the judiciary. My order was based on the documents placed before me, arguments made from both the sides and the various rulings given earlier.

Let me tell you frankly, I was given only one letter by the GRC, asking for a separate sitting since they had split from the Congress and formed another group. During the hearing, I was neither provided a copy of the letter submitted to the governor, nor informed that a split had also taken place in the original Congress party.

The court in its judgment made one more observation: being a member of the Congress, I should have known that two of the GRC members were AICC members and five, Goa PCC members. How can I give my judgment just because I was witness to something like this? Can the judge punish the murderer just because he has personally seen him committing murder? And if so, why was it not brought to my notice during the hearing by the GRC counsels? I believe that the high court passed a different judgment only because these facts were brought to the notice of the learned judges.

The high court has also stated that the speaker, being the head of the legislature, need not know whether the original party has split or not.

I don't agree with it. The Anti-Defection Act is very clear about it. Why is it then mentioned in the Act that a split in the original party, besides the legislature party, is necessary?

Why have you challenged the orders in the Supreme Court if the high court judgment is based on totally different documents, which were not submitted before you?

I am not challenging it. The Congress legislators have challenged it. I would be party to it only to seek justice on the allegations made against me. That I was biased, partisan, had malafideintentions, denied natural justice etc etc.

Do you think it is proper on the part of the judiciary to pass strictures or make observations on the conduct of a legislative head, who is another constitutional authority?

This is precisely the attitude I am worried about. ( It is for this reason that) I am seeking justice in the apex court. Otherwise, it would set a wrong precedent in the country, which may harm the foundation of our democracy. I am confident that I will get justice in the Supreme Court.

The high court also struck down your order granting ex-parte ad-interim relief to the Congress petitioners by restraining GRC members from entering the House. Why are you not challenging that order?

I am not challenging anything. I will just make my side clear to the highest judicial authority of the country. Secondly, the high court itself has made it clear that the speaker is empowered to pass ex-parte ad-interim relief. In fact, I wanted to give a personal hearing to the GRC members on July 28, before passing my order. But by mistake, the date was published as August 28. I had then no other option but pass the ex-parte order.

But why did you make them victim of your mistake? Even the court said it was a hasty decision.

It was not. I was prima facie convinced that the GRC members had committed illegality when I read the petition filed by the Congress. The high court feels that my ruling was passed with mala fide intention. I will definitely clarify my position in this regard before the Supreme Court.

You say you wanted to give Dr de Souza and his colleagues a personal hearing? Yet your decision was immediate. Were you afraid that Pratapsing Rane (then chief minister) would lose the confidence vote on July 28 if the GRC members were allowed to enter the House?

Definitely not. I was more worried about the illegality, which I did not want to allow to continue. Secondly, I did not know that the governor would tell Rane to seek a confidence vote. I passed my order at noon. I received intimation from the governor regarding the confidence vote at 2 pm, half an hour before the House assembled.

The speaker is a politician, who may not necessarily have any legal experience, unlike the learned judges. Whose verdict, do you feel, should be respected in such a situation?

I don't agree with you. The speaker always has the backing of experienced legal experts in the legislature department, who can assist him in interpreting the law in a right spirit.

But what if these bureaucrats misguide the speaker, having vested interest in their mind?

Well, it can happen if the speaker is not in a position to apply his mind at all. But you need not be a lawyer or judge to understand or interpret the 10th Schedule. It is simple, clear -- not vague at all.

Why is it then that the judiciary made allegations against you?

That's what my question is, for which I am seeking justice in the higher court now. Secondly, the court has simply accepted the allegations made by the petitioners.

You mean to say their lawyers misguided the court about 'bias'?

I don't want to comment on it right now. I have full faith in the judiciary and expect a right decision from the Supreme Court.

Don't you think the speaker, being a politician and belonging to the ruling party, would be biased while deciding on cases of disqualification?

He need not be biased, though it is a fact that the speaker cannot do away with his party affiliation. In India, we need to adopt the British system, where no party fields its candidate to the speaker's constituency, in the next election. On the contrary, the prime minister and the Opposition leader should address his election meetings. His re-election is assured, which makes him totally independent.

Why, then, should the people be blamed if they believe more in the judiciary than in speakers, who are dependent upon their political parties for survival?

I can't say. It depends on how they look at it.

Do you support the suggestion of handing over powers to decide on disqualification to some other authority, like the Election Commission or the high court?

Every authority is ultimately a human being, having some or other influence on him, in terms of political affiliation or because he is appointed by some or other authority. Even the EC is appointed by somebody. Anybody can be biased.

Does that mean your judgments were also biased due to such prevailing circumstances?

Of course not. It depends on how you look at it.

What remedy do you suggest?

I have no remedy to suggest as far as the system is concerned. Our whole democratic system has collapsed, having no moral values left in politics any more. The whole political system is slowly being taken over by criminals and smugglers. They are the root cause of it.

Regarding the Anti-Defection Act, it is totally defective. It was brought to prevent defections. But what we see is organised group defections. It needs to be scrapped immediately, making a provision of automatic disqualification if one wants to leave the party, resign and face the election. No need for the speaker, the Election Commission or the court to interpret (such a law).

The Opposition feels you are the worst speaker Goa has ever seen.

I don't say I am the best, but I am definitely not the worst. I don't agree at all with their allegations that I have lowered the dignity of the speaker's post in the country. I am also not prepared to step down just because they are demanding it. If they feel that I am a misfit, let them remove me. I am prepared for it.

The Rediff Interviews