Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because
her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so?
Why did this "voice" speak now, despite her being elected Congress
Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of
support from all allied parties?

Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that
could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of
the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.

Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her
eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by
her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by
President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink.
The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her
candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is
believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points
regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so,
he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal
luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok
Sabha election results.

That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only
after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after
meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain
why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to
accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.
According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed
to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries
raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter.
Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May
19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and
enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without
consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.
Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the
basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President
could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said
to have informally communicated to her on Monday
evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he
invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.
On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party
leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj
against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional
post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top
constitutional experts, the President could have sought three
clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience
for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would
continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin
issue.

The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought
relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: "A person
shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
either House of Parliament" on any or more of five
possible grounds.

Clause(d) of the same Article says "... or is under any
acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state".
The term "adherence" had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in
her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli
parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral
property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the
country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say,
makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be
interpreted as "adherence" to a foreign country.
Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently
bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only
after
his death. Consequently, the property was not her's when she filed
her 1999 nomination affidavit.
Article 103 states that "if any question arises as to whether a
member of either House of Parliament has become subject to
disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be
referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be
final". Clause 2 of the Article says: "Before giving any decision on
such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the
Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."

This means that the President is required by the Constitution to
undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and
constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi's swearing-in could
not happen before the matter was fully clarified and
resolved. Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section
5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity
provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign
origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country
confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.

The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of
foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through
registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy
more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same
opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that
particular country.

While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal
luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the
issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that
while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she
surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New
Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian
Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.


This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few
days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch
of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.
Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma
Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India's Armed
Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It
referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service
official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or
must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed
over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's
petition demanded to know.

What could have prevented Sonia?

Article 102 of the Constitution says: "A person shall be disqualified
for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House
of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement of
allegiance or adherence to a foreign state." Sonia Gandhi, in
her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus
invite, the term "adherence" of the said provision.

Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue
who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the
Election Commission.

Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause
for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says
the said person could not enjoy more rights than those available to
an Indian born person in that other country if he/she acquires
citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance.

The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when
Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship.

The Pioneer