The Supreme Court ruling on the Bihar assembly dissolution is of such momentous import as to lay the foundation for an Indian revolution. Revolution does not mean of course extolling Mao and killing small landlords or ill-paid policemen in remote villages. Nor does revolution mean dreaming of a Hindu-dominated world while killing defenceless Muslims. India's revolution will come when laws are not broken but observed. When the State does not unleash violence but curbs it. When our Constitution is not flouted but respected. And when by bringing in such changes, the corrupt, callow and cruel elite that rules us is either reformed beyond recognition or removed from power. The recent Supreme Court judgment gives promise of precisely such a revolution. The Constitution has at last tripped the liars and deceivers who for half a century habitually distorted it.

Initial reaction
The initial reactions of opposition leaders and media pundits to the Supreme Court judgment were pathetic. Mr George Fernandes sought a court case against Governor Buta Singh. Mr LK Advani by some esoteric logic considered home minister Shivraj Patil singularly responsible for the dissolution. Doubtless Mr Patil was flattered by being vested with such heavy responsibility. Mr Vajpayee's customary wisdom punctuated by pregnant pauses was replaced by a barren silence.
Only belatedly did NDA leaders make muffled demands for the PM's resignation. But most critics focused on Mr Buta Singh. As a Dalit not famed for probity and with sons Lovely and Sweetie flanking him, he makes a comfortable target to flay. He is quite unlike Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has impeccable Oxford credentials. Dr Singh thought nothing of accepting appointment as Prime Minister by the Dynasty's current incumbent instead of insisting on a prior electoral endorsement by the Congress parliamentary party.
But then he was the same gentleman who thought nothing of making a false affidavit claiming he was a permanent resident of Assam in order to get elected to the Rajya Sabha, wasn't he? When icons of middle class morality expose their hypocrisy it's our tradition to look the other way.
Media pundits and legal luminaries all solemnly affirm that the President can return an advice by the cabinet for reconsideration. But if it comes back to him after reconsideration he must act by it. They never clarify whether the President should honour his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution if offered unconstitutional advice by the cabinet. Even a distinguished legal luminary like Soli Sorabji seemed to indicate on TV that the President eventually is bound by the cabinet's advice. If so, the President must resign to honour his oath, shouldn't he? Is that what our legal luminaries believe? As this column indicated on an earlier occasion, one can dump the so-called wisdom of experts in the trash can. The Indian Constitution is written and explicit. Ignore the debates of the Constituent Assembly or which legal expert said what and where. Only Supreme Court judgments, however flawed and mediocre, remain relevant. Like bad decisions by cricket umpires, the flawed judgments by judges must be accepted till reversed or overtaken by subsequent rulings of the courts themselves. Fortunately this does happen sometimes.

Full judgment
The government seeks time till the full judgment is made available. It is obviously attempting to brazen through the crisis. The diversion caused by the earthquake and the uncommonly kind media reactions help it. Indira Gandhi in her day also sought time to study the Allahabad High Court judgment. She ended up by imposing a cowardly, fraudulent Emergency. This time a repeat performance seems unlikely. The judgment cannot be brushed under the carpet. And its implications are so unique as to create an unimagined situation. That's why there is potential for revolution.
One columnist has demanded that the President should resign for signing an unconstitutional order. Others think that the Prime Minister should resign because the President is bound by the advice of the cabinet. Most people of course think that Buta Singh should resign. His eventual transfer from Bihar would satisfy them. The truth is, and this is what makes the situation unique, Buta Singh should be sacked because of a partisan and fraudulent Governor's report. The PM and cabinet should be sacked for endorsing that report and hustling it through in circumstances suggesting conspiracy and malafide intent. And the President should resign because he failed to apply his mind and safeguard the Constitution which he is under oath to protect. But how can all this come about? By a simple process which if followed would convert our present political system into a presidential form of government without violating any norm of the Constitution.
There are two alternative scenarios that could be enacted. First, President Kalam could sack the cabinet. Then on the reasonable plea that ideological diversity gives promise only of a government based on an opportunistic alliance without stability, he could dissolve Parliament and order a fresh poll. Then, and only then, might he accept his moral responsibility of not applying his mind and resign from his post. The alternative and easier course would be for the President to brief the Vice President, Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, before accepting his responsibility and tendering his resignation. Mr Shekhawat as the acting President would be fully empowered to do the rest. Mr Shekhawat as a veteran political warhorse is more than capable of bold action.
The result of these exertions would be that a new President would have to be elected when there is no House. Clearly, the new President would be elected by the new MPs. In that event ideally the election of MPs and the President should be simultaneous. But even if that does not happen, the President's election would come on the heels of the mid-term parliamentary poll. That would allow presidential candidates to throw their hats in the ring. Since their electoral fortunes would hinge on the parliamentary poll, these candidates could not only forge alliances with parties for future support but could actually travel across the country to campaign for their future supporters. In that event people when voting for the MP would also know which presidential candidate they vote for.

Basic structure
Abracadabra! Without violating the basic structure of the Constitution, the President would have been elected directly by the people. Subsequently Parliament could amend the law to give fixed terms to legislatures and make polls to parliament, assemblies and the Presidency simultaneous. Already a sizable section of opinion within parliament favours fixed terms. And till 1967 parliamentary and assembly elections were indeed held simultaneously.
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgment and with the President assuming responsibility, a fresh look at his powers would become imperative. Indeed a fresh look at the Constitution might be undertaken. The President upon resigning after the Supreme Court judgment would already be perceived as the one assuming ultimate responsibility for protecting the Constitution. If elected in the manner suggested he would also be seen as the heaviest and most legitimate political authority by the people. There are more than enough powers for the President in the Constitution even as it exists to convert the present system into a Presidential form of government if the President was to exercise those powers.
Constitutions are not scraps of dry text. They contain the law and practice by which societies are ruled. They evolve with history and experience. If India seeks good governance it must inevitably adopt a presidential system to acquire national coherence. At the same time, it must introduce much deeper devolution of power to make democracy and self-rule meaningful for the people. As a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious subcontinent only a genuinely federal democracy can keep India united and strong.
The recent Supreme Court judgment provides an opportunity for such change. Will the nation seize it?