Saugata Banerjee, I am trying to recall details of this Bihar event. If I remember correctly, he did make a phone call to his secretary or someone to get more information. He has never had anything to do with politics in his career, Now away from India, he may have felt, he was facing something entirely new. He may have thought that he would cause more trouble by implying that there was no "emergency" in Bihar. You see, most people have very good "hind sight". Suppose he had not signed and some dreadful event took place in Bihar [ like some Ran Veer Sena or Dalit Sena massacreing each other ], then the President may be blamed by another camp. If I remember correctly, the government had said to him that "constitutional machinery in the state of Bihar had broken down". The blame lies with Governor Buta Singh, in this instance. How many Indian Presidents before Kalam had refused to endorese the state governor's report of such breakdown, I do not know. I think, those close to Dr.Kalam felt, he was not too happy about this episode. But to call him "irresponsible" as you do, may not be right. The President of India is "subordinate" in effect, to the Executive. He or She is a "formal" head. He or She is NOT a policy-maker. Having learnt his lesson, if you remember Dr.Kalam returned some other bills back to Parliament without signing them. He began to summon the PM and other Ministers on certain other policies. That may explaon why the UPA did not have him a second term.
