By Meher Sunil Dabrai
Introduction
In our federal country, we have seldom heard of our Presidents getting involved in controversies but unfortunately, the same cannot be said about our State Governors. Unfortunately, many of our state Governors, irrespective of the political parties that they belong to have been involved in some serious controversies.
In recent times, the Governors in the country make it to the headlines with some or the other political controversy on a yearly basis. This makes us question whether the time has come for India to rethink the position of the Governors in the country.
The accusations towards the offices of the Governors are not new. Every political party that has formed the central Government of the country has been accused of misusing the Governor’s office in the states that have been ruled by the opposition parties for political purposes.
In recent times as well, fingers have been raised upon the ruling government of misusing the Governor’s offices. There have also been certain precedents in the past wherein the Governors have also courted controversy by not inviting the single largest party to form the government.
Thus, this article answers the question – Is it time to reconsider the positions of Governors in India?
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021
In the midst of the second wave of the Covid 19 pandemic in Delhi, the Centre notified a law giving itself more power that the elected government of the city. The “Government of Delhi” now means the “Lieutenant Governor of Delhi” who will be considered as the representative of the Centre.
While the country was amidst the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Centre drawing its attention to these issues drew a lot of negative media attention.
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act 2021 came into force according to a notification by the Home Ministry. It was notified that the Delhi government will have to seek the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor before making any executive action. Despite facing an opposition by both the Houses of the Parliament, the law was cleared in the last month.
The Delhi Chief Minister claimed that the day that the Bill was cleared was a “sad day for the Indian democracy”. He said that the development was an “insult” to the people of Delhi and the Bill defeats the purpose of the democracy by taking away the power that is given to the elected members who were voted by the people.
In 2018, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that the status of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is not that of the Governor of a State but rather that of an administrator or working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor.
The Judges had ruled that “The Lieutenant Governor has not been entrusted with any powers that may allow him to make any kind of independent decisions.”
The further contents of the article throw light upon the position of the Governor in our Indian democracy which has been under review time and again due to the various controversial acts that have been done by the Governors of various states in the past.
The article also talks about the position of the Governor and the power that has been given to them under the purview of the Indian Constitution.
Qualifications and Role of the Governor
The role and the position of the Governor in a State is the same as that of the President in the country. In the governance of the country, the President is the nominal head of the country while the real power lies with the Prime Minister. In the governance of the State, the Governor is the nominal head of the country while all the power lies with the Chief Minister.
This concept is based on Article 356 of the Constitution of India which is also known as the “President’s Rule”.
The qualifications of the Governor have been envisaged under Article 157 and Article 158 of the Constitution of India. To be the Governor of a State, a person must:
- Be at least 35 years of age.
- Not be a member of either house of the Parliament or the house of the state legislature.
- Not hold any office of profit.
- Not be a resident of the same state. (Although this has not been mentioned in the Constitution.
The Governor of a State is appointed by the President of India. the factors based on which the President evaluates the candidates has not been mentioned under the Constitution.
Powers and Functions of a Governor
The primary function of the governor is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law that has been included in their oath of office and has also been mentioned under Article 159 of the Indian Constitution under the heading of the administration of State affairs.
The different powers that have been vested with the Governor are as follows:
- Executive powers related to administration, appointments and removals,
- Legislative powers related to lawmaking and the state legislature, that is State Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) or State Legislative Council (VIdhan Parishad).
- Discretionary powers to be carried out according to the discretion of the governor.
Removal of the Governor
The term of office of the governor is usually 5 years but it can be terminated earlier by:
- Dismissal by the president (which may usually take place upon being advised by the President) at whose pleasure the Governor hold office. Dismissal of Governors without a valid reason is not allowed. However, it is the duty of the President to dismiss a Governor if his acts are upheld as malafide and unconstitutional by the Courts.
- Resignation of the Governor.
The Constitution does not provide for impeachment of the Governor unlike that of the President of India and other judicial and executive officers.
Are there any Controversies about the position?
The key role of the Governors in the country is to maintain political relations between the Centre and the State. The conduct in which various Governors have made political statements and their actions in various circumstances have often come under the radar of the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court has then dealt with numerous challenges to fairly impose the President’s rule through the Governors in the States. The Supreme Court has often critically
- Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India[1]
Governors are not unattached to their political parties.
The Supreme court referred to the Report of Sarkaria Commission on the Centre-State relations; Justice Sarkaria had said that the key to restore the prestige of the governor’s office lies in picking the right person for the important constitutional post.
The Court had observed that the basic criteria for the selection of the Governors had often been neglected and there had been a breach in this respect on the part of almost all political parties.
The Court had also observed that the concept of a Governor being detached from political parties as they usually acquire the post after being in the position of the Chief Minister. In these circumstances detachment from political parties that they belong to is merely a myth.
- S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India[2]
Landmark judgement aimed to curb the misuse of Article 356.
This was a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The court discussed the provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and the issues related to the same.
This case directly influences the Centre-State relations at the time. The main aim of the judgement was to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 which allowed President’s rule to be imposed over the State Governments.
- Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India[3]
Validity of the proclamation of President’s Rule.
The Supreme Court was called upon to pronounce its verdict of the proclamation of the President’s Rule and the dissolution of the Assembly in Bihar in 2005.
In this matter, the Supreme Court held that the Governor could not make decisions merely based on his subjective assessments.
- Nabam Rebia Etc. Vs Deputy Speaker and Ors[4]
The Governor is an executive nominee.
This case established that the Governor is not an elected representative but only an executive nominee whose powers come from the aid and advice of the Cabinet.
The use of his discretionary powers to summon or dissolve Assembly sessions without the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and his Cabinet is unconstitutional.
Conclusion
Right since the inception of the democratic government in India, time and again there have been instances of various governors that have tried to bring down the democratically elected governments that have run by opposite parties. This has not been the case with the current government but with the previous governments as well.
Apart from this, as mentioned above, the Governors have also not been able to set aside their political loyalties and have often made decisions for or against certain parties thereby defeating the purpose of political neutrality of the Governor.
There have been several pinions regarding reconsideration in the position of the Governor. Some people have suggested that the post of the Governor be reserved for non-political candidates; and others have urged the Supreme Court to lay down the law on how the Governor should to act when an election delivers a faulty verdict.
We would like to conclude by saying that, in our opinion, the position of the Governor is indeed necessary for the establishment of Centre-State relations and many other purposes.
While the position of the Governors cannot be dispensed with, the selection process of the holders of this office needs to be changed so as to minimize the never ending conflict that has come along with the position.
Reference-
- indianexpress.com
- financialexpress.com
- thehindu.com
- upgovernor.gov.in
- theprint.in
- thehindu.com
- journalsofindia.com
- timesofindia.indiatimes.com
- Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India 2006 (2) SCC 1 ↑
- S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918 ↑
- Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India Writ Petition (civil) 257 of 2005 ↑
- Nabam Rebia Etc. Vs Deputy Speaker and Ors Civil Appeal Nos 6203-6204 of 2016 ↑
