Is recommendation made under duress acceptable?

NEW DELHI: Criminalisation of politics is not the sole issue that should worry democratic minded people. Hijacking of the Raj Bhavan by some agitated legislators, who gheraoed the governor and his staff, is yet another aspect of present day politics.
The case in hand is of Arunachal Pradesh where governor Vinod Pande said he was forced to sign a letter to the President recommending central rule after he had to dissolve the assembly.He also sought withdrawal of his letter which was penned by some Congress legislators but signed by him as a hostage, even as his staff and a "tipsy" aide remained silent spectators to unparalleled activity in the Raj Bhavan.
In the past, some Raj Bhavans have witnessed hostile and abusive outbursts by dissatisfied legislators who staked their claim to rule but the governor concerned did not budge. Even former President B D Jatti was subjected to ridicule during a political turmoil.
Till now, only legislators with uncertain loyalties were kept as hostages before a party was to seek a confidence vote or was facing a no-confidence vote. But they were kept in comfortable confines and offered luxuries of their choice.
Arunachal has given a new, though strange direction, to an ever accused politics which surely demonstrates not only criminal impatience but unparliamentary temperaments of the law makers.
The incident, however, has to be seen and resolved through the aid of the Constitution. Can the Centre accept the recommendation of the governor made under duress? Or, should it ignore it? The Centre has to be in a dilemma. The governor''s "recommendation" to impose Article 356(1)(c) stipulates partial President''s rule which does not have the 356 effect.
It says: "The President may by proclamation make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the state."
The Centre cannot ignore the circumstances under which Pande accepted the minority chief minister''s advice to dissolve the assembly three months before its term was due to expire.
Under the circumstances created by the downsizing of the cabinet, the governor could have either allowed political forces to decide who would be the CM and for how long, or in order to preempt bargaining of portfolios and perks three months before the election, dissolve the assembly.
The dissolution of the assembly has no doubt upset the Congress. The CM, now in a minority, would head the caretaker administration when elections take place in the north-eastern state.
It must be remembered that being the CM at the time of elections does not necessarily pay.
We have seen the fate of the CMs of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh during the December assembly polls. They had to go.