SC On Governors’ Role
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court stating categorically that the constitutional head of a state should be guided by the values of the Constitution and “not by political expediency” is significant and much needed. The landmark ruling that the governor must respect the will of the people, reflected by decisions taken by elected representatives in the Assembly and must refrain from creating roadblocks, is expected to end the stalemate over the powers of governors in various states.
Justice Pardiwala, who penned the judgment, observed as per Article 200 of the Constitution, the governor has only three options when a bill is placed before him – grant assent, withhold it and send it back for reconsideration or reserve it for the President. It said a bill could be reserved for the President only at the first instance.
Since long there has been a deterioration in the system of governance, more so due to the role of governors in playing their role in the states. The Court has fixed a time limit of one month for the governor to give assent and a timeline of three months for the President to take action. Meanwhile, all the pending 10 bills of Tamil Nadu have been deemed assented by the order. Though the governor will continue to be chancellor of state universities, he may not have any role to play in appointment of vice-chancellors.
It may be pointed out here that not just Tamil Nadu but in other states like Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Haryana and Kerala the Chief Ministers have been facing problems with governors. Though commissions appointed earlier had recommended fixing a time limit for governors to decide on a bill, the present Supreme Court judgment has fixed it as one month. Even the Karnataka Law Commission’s 22nd report exclusively dealt with ‘Assent to Bills – Problems of Delay (Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution)’ chaired by Justice VS Malimath, categorically stated that “it would indeed be anomalous and paradoxical if more time is taken by the head of state to assent to a bill than for a legislature to pass it. It is well-settled that every state action has to be reasonable”.
The impartiality of the role of the governor has come in for attack as they have been found to disturb elected governments. Political analysts have alleged that the governors have not acted with necessary objectivity in the exercise of their powers or in the role of a vital link between the Centre and the states.
Not that the states are playing a judicious role as they tend to ignore the Governor in various ways. This is specially evident in West Bengal where the governor was not allowed to choose his nominee as the Vice Chancellor of the universities of which he is the head. However, the well-established dictum of the governor playing the role of a philosopher and guide to the Council of Ministers is no longer been valid today. It has been alleged that, in recent years, the appointment of governors is being done with the clear intent of keeping Opposition-led states on the wrong foot.
The conflict between the governors and the state governments is nothing new but has aggravated in recent years. Obviously, the reason behind this is two-fold – one centralisation of authority in the hands of the chief minister and the other is the increasing politicisation and corruption in the administration. All this has raised questions whether the governor has any role in the state and whether the position should be abolished.
The Sarkaria Commission had recommended that a politician from the ruling party at the Centre should ideally not be appointed as governor of a state which is governed by an Opposition party or combination of parties. But in 2021, the BJP appointed the Tamil Nadu party chief as Telangana Governor, and this resulted in frequent conflicts with the BRS government. The delay in signing bills has also been manifest by the governors of Tamil Nadu and Punjab governors, leading to much confusion in the respective states.
There has not been any clear guideline on the appointment of governors and the Centre’s choice remains the only criterion. Much earlier, of course, persons of eminence and retired bureaucrats, who were somewhat neutral, were appointed to the post. The crisis in the state administration has placed the need to look at a different way of appointing governors. The theory that states may appoint names may not be conducive to overall governance as the need for creating counter-balances in the power structure may be lost in the process.
While some believed that forming a panel which includes the leader of the Opposition in selecting a governor, this will not help as the Centre’s nominees will be in the majority and have its way in choosing its nominee. The Leader of Opposition can only add an additional layer of scrutiny. Thus, the procedure of appointment of governors remains a big problem. However, it needs to be stated that doing away with the position of governors is not advisable at this juncture as ideally this role is necessary to keep a check on the governance system and report the same to the Centre, from time to time.
It is also a fact that governors have not been able to improve the governance of states. But higher education has, to a certain extent, maintained some form of neutrality due to the pro-active role of the governor, who is the chancellor of all universities of the state. One of the major reasons for the clash with governors is in this realm as states always prefer to control universities and have their chosen men in pivotal positions. Obviously, this will not improve the quality of education in the country and the governor should be given a free hand to have eminent academic scholars to head universities.
Though one cannot go against laid out principles in the Constitution, it needs to be stated that the governor should be bestowed with more powers. Take for example, the pre and post-poll violence that we see in some states, with West Bengal having a notorious reputation, the governor should be given some powers. There is need to form an expert committee at the national level to evolve what type of intervention the governor can do when there is wanton violence and increase in crimes all over the state.
As for governance, which in most states is deplorable, the question arises that if an elected government fails to run the state properly being enmeshed with corruption and nepotism, what role should the governor play? Can the governor make recommendations that the states have to follow? While most states are severely stressed due to financial constraints, for which they frequently blame the Centre, the governance of these states is poor due to lack of transparency and judicious outlook.
If governors have no role in ensuring good governance and guiding the state, what is the use of having these titular heals? There is a need to re-examine the role of governors by an expert committee and, if necessary, give them adequate powers to play an effective role in ensuring good governance. This is not to belittle elected governments but to give governors their due share in the administrative machinery for effective functioning, provided they are neutral and not tilting towards the Centre. — INFA