Raj Bhavan, a palace of intrigues – I
CM’s will shall prevail
While this writer has the highest regard and respect for the post of Governor, it becomes difficult to resist the urge to express anguish over the machinations of the present incumbent of the Raj Bhavan. In a series starting today, an attempt is being made to put the recent unseemly developments in proper light, with no malice meant to the high office of the Governor.
The Governor of a State is appointed by the President of India and holds office at the latter’s pleasure. Under the parliamentary system of government prescribed by the Constitution, while the Governor is the constitutional head of State, the real executive power is vested in the Ministry headed by the Chief Minister, which is responsible through the legislature to the people.
It is an established fact that the Governor is at the most a titular head, having only an advisory role. The various discretionary powers and special responsibilities attributed to him preclude him from acting suo motu, against the advice of the Council of Ministers. Even the notorious Article 356 which deals with imposing President’s rule in a State, confers on him the power to only make a report or recommendation to the President, that too only when ‘told’ to do so. Though the Governor is under the direct personal control of the President, it does not appear that the latter will be entitled to exercise any effective control over the State government against the wishes of a Chief Minister who enjoys the confidence of the legislature, unless the confidence itself is in question. Fortunately, this is not the situation in Tamilnadu.
Governors in India have almost always been appointed from the ruling party at the Centre. When Mr V.P. Singh became Prime Minister in 1989, the country witnessed the strange spectacle of his government advising the President to seek the resignation of all Governors appointed by the earlier Congress regime. ln a federal structure such as ours, where the ruling party at the Centre may not be so in a State, confrontations between the nominated Governors and elected Chief Ministers are only expected. Even in a situation where the same party was in power at both the Centre and in the State, there had been disagreement between the two, as had happened in Bihar in 1985 and Madhya Pradesh in 1989.
The framers of our Constitution were by no means oblivious to the inherent friction likely to arise between the Governor and the Chief Minister. This is clearly borne out on a perusal of the detailed deliberations that went into framing the provisions relating to the Governor. On 29 August, 1947, the Constituent Assembly which was vested with the responsibility of preparing the Constitution of lndia appointed a drafting committee. This drafting committee presented a draft Constitution in February 1948. It would be surprising to many to know that the draft Constitution submitted to the Constituent Assembly in fact contained a recommendation that the Governor of a State should be elected by vote!
But the Constituent Assembly, after extensive debates, eventually decided to have the Governors appointed by the President instead of getting them elected. One would do well to study the arguments advocated in favour of such a decision, which run on the following lines:
1) It would save the country from the evil consequence of yet another election run on personal issues which would be highly detrimental to progress.
2) If the Governor were to be elected by popular vote, he might consider himself superior to the Chief Minister and this might lead to hostilities between the two.
‘‘When the whole of the executive power is vested in the Council of Ministers, if there is another person who believes that he has got the backing of the province behind him and, therefore at his discretion he can come forward and intervene in the governance of the province, it would really amount to a surrender of democracy’’. This was the precise argument, to quote a leading constitutional authority.
Prophetic words indeed! The Constitution while envisaging friction between the two posts has also made it quite clear that the Chief Minister being an elected representative is definitely superior to a nominated Governor. In short, a fair interpretation of the intent and content of the provisions would lead us to the conclusion that the Constitution does not provide for two power centres in a State and if such a situation arises, the will of the Chief Minister shall prevail.
(to be continued)