Those who believe that the parliamentary system of democracy is best suited for a country of our size and stage of development do so not only because of the comprehensive manner in which our Constitution has incorporated the best from Constitutions of other democratic nations but also because the framers of our Constitution left ample scope for the adoption of certain healthy practices and conventions that have proved to be successful in the Western parliamentary democracies. One such healthy convention followed in India has been that the ministers of the Central government do not express their criticism of other members of the Cabinet in public. Instead, whenever they have views radically different from those of their colleagues in the council of ministers, they are brought before the Cabinet for detailed discussions. Or, the concerned ministers bring the matter before the Prime Minister. However, it is sad to note that of late a trend has set in where some ministers publicly express their dissenting voice or personal views as if it is their legitimate right to do so.
The provocation I had for raising this issue through this colu­mn was certain observations ma­de by Kamal Nath, the Union mi­nister for road transport and highways, about the Planning Co­mmission and the role of pu­blic and private participation in the construction of highways at a seminar in New Delhi on July 5, 2010. Us­ing rather strong and derisive la­nguage against the Planning Commission, Mr Nath said that the commission was an “armch­air adviser” which is “like a buffet table” from where one could choose bites according to one’s digestive capacity.
Under the pa­r­liamentary system, certain bills have to be discussed in the concerned standing committees of Parliament in order to get feedback from the people. There are certain matters on which de­c­isions are taken by the Cabinet after knowing the views of the Planning Commission, the mini­stry of finance and other conce­r­n­ed ministries. Once a decision is taken by the Cabinet, that bec­o­mes the decision of the government and the duty of the minister co­ncerned is to implement the de­cision in all sincerity. This is the spirit behind the concept of co­llective responsibility in Article 75 (3) of the Constitution wh­ich states that “the council of ministers will be collectively re­s­ponsible to the House of the people”.
In cases where ministers may be unhappy that their views have not been given the attention they deserve, it is open to the minister to press for re-examination of certain aspects of the decision in the Cabinet if the Prime Minister agrees.
It appears that there is a sharp difference between the ministry of road transport and highways and the Planning Commission about the target of 20 km road a day as proposed by the ministry. The Planning Commission appears to consider this target as too unrealistic. The minister might have made his observations at the seminar in a light-hearted manner but most people will take his observation in a different light. For example, the minister referred to the reports presented by the Planning Commission as an exercise of collecting “something from here, something from there and producing a book”. He went on to say that “producing a book is one thing and producing a road is another thing”. Fortunately, Montek Si­ngh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, who was present at the seminar, sh­owed extraordinary patience and politeness and said that he would take the minister’s comments as “constructive critici­sm”. (Though a few days later, in a TV interview, Mr Ahluwalia said: “My view is that you cannot run a go­vernment only with people who know how to build roads. You have to give then a set of rules”.)
One can see that there have be­en serious departures from the us­­ual norms of criticism of other ministries or organisations of the Ce­­ntral government in the spe­e­ch of the minister. The minister seems to have fo­rg­o­tten that the Planning Commission, which he has described as an “armchair adviser” and lik­e­ned to a “buffet table”, is headed by the Prime Minister and has as its members senior Cabinet min­i­­sters. The deputy chairman of the Planning Commission is hi­m­self an official of Cabinet rank and held in high respect as an em­inent economist. At any rate, the Planning Commission is not a subordinate body of any ministry at the Centre. It may lack constitutional or even the statutory backing but the fact that it has always been headed by the Prime Minister had lent it a good deal of au­thority and respect from both the Central and state governments.
While criticising the Planning Commissi­on many people seem to forget that “economic and social pl­anning” is included as item 20 in the concurrent list of the Constitution and, therefore, it is discharging its constitutional ob­l­igations in giving advice on pl­an projects to both the Centre and states. In any case, if a decision is taken by the Planning Co­mmission on so important a matter as the target to be aimed at in the construction of highways, the only course open to the minister concerned who wis­h­es to have a higher target is to in­voke the intervention of the Pr­ime Mi­n­­ister once again and see wh­e­t­her other members of the Ca­b­i­net agree with the Planning Co­mmission’s view on this issue.
Because of the fact that the Prime Minister is presiding over a coalition government, reaching a consensus among the various parties participating in the government may involve certain compromises and concessions. Fortunately for the Prime Minister he has not experienced serious opposition from his coalition partners in the past six years to several very important proposals. We in India have successfully evolved a system of a comm­on minimum programme to wh­ich all coalition partners have to subscribe and, therefore, much of the difficulty that was originally expected from the coalition partners have not cropped up during the last six years.
Of course, in the matter of ob­s­e­rvance of certain unwritten ru­les and conventions there have be­en conspicuous breaches on the part of certain other members of the Central Cabinet as well. Ce­rtain ministers have shown a te­ndency to rush to the media with their own opinions and vi­e­ws on matters even when they themselves are not fully familiar with the facts of the case on wh­ich they are giving their views. I am sure that off-hand comments and derisive criticism from Cabinet ministers at the Centre will soon cease to be a practice in our democracy and the Prime Minister will be firm in dealing with such undesirable trends.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra