In recent days, a number of governors of states, governed by political parties opposed to the party in centre have been in confrontation with their chief ministers. In the main, they are being accused of acting as the agents of the union government. A peek into history will benefit to understand this tiff better.
After a great deal of debate, the constituent assembly retained the Institution of Governors of States, to be appointed by the President of India. Under the Indian constitution, the governance of a state is to be carried out in the name of the governor, aided and advised by a chief minister. Governors are entrusted with specific powers and duties in regard to the functioning of the state legislature, of which he is a part (Articles 168, and 174 to 176).
A governor’s role
On the influence and persuasion of Sardar Patel, the constituent assembly was keen on a strong centre to ensure that India would never again be fragmented. Several laws were passed to ensure this and it is done through giving constitutional power to governors who represent the centre.
To enable the governor to discharge his duties properly, Article 167 imposes a duty on the chief minister to keep him informed of all decisions of the cabinet and legislative proposals, as also furnish additional information, if required.
Thus, the role of the governor has three facets:
- Constitutional head of the state: this requires him to be a “ friend, philosopher and guide” to the chief minister, with the mutual understanding that he has the inherent “right to be consulted, to encourage and to caution”
- An active and vital link between the state and the union, in order to facilitate mutual understanding and promote the welfare of the people in the state.
- Sentinel of the constitution and pro-consul of the union in emergency situations or when president’s rule is imposed.
Who can be a governor
These facets render the office of governor indispensable in a federal polity which is more unitary than federal. There were no qualifications prescribed for the appointment of a governor except that he has to be a citizen of India and under the age of 35 years. However, during a debate in the assembly, Jawahar Lal Nehru set the criteria for appointment of Governor as:
- The person should be eminent
- Should not belong to the same state and
- Should not have taken too active a part in politics in the immediate past.
In addition to these, compulsory consultation with the concerned chief minister had been suggested and accepted. Right from the beginning, these criteria have been met more in the breach than observance irrespective of whichever party was in office at the centre.
Governors through the time
For the first two decades of independence, the Congress party held a monopoly of governance both at the centre and the states, thereby facilitating the dominance of the centre over the states. As a corollary, an overwhelming majority of governors belonged to the Congress and therefore, served its partisan interests. In fact, this phenomenon started as early as 1952, when Sri Prakasa, governor of the then Madras state, with the approval of the then prime minister, foiled the prospect of an opposition government by first nominating Rajaji to the legislative council and then appointing him as the chief minister.
As power got dispersed over the political spectrum, the routine practice of governors recommending President’s rule, under Article 356, at the instance of the centre, came under challenge, leading to a series of court verdicts that halted it.
Despite different political parties governing at the centre and in the states, the practice of appointing members/ supporters of the ruling political dispensation at the centre, as governors has continued under all regimes.
Stiff tiffs
Recent instances of governors and chief ministers coming into confrontation have to be understood and appreciated in this background. Some governors still construe their role entirely, as one of toeing the line of the union government, thereby antagonising their chief ministers. In other cases, even sincere differences of opinion and consequent advice by the governor for a different course of action is being resented by the chief minister because of political antagonisms.
Derived from the whole constitutional scheme, as it had evolved , it becomes axiomatic that a governor should be apolitical. His intervention in governance of his state should be more an exception than a rule, warranted by the gravity and importance of the matter in question or an emergency. Interactions with the chief minister should be conditioned by the recognition that, unlike himself, the chief minister is a democratically elected functionary representing the interests and aspirations of the people in his state. He should earn the respect of the chief minister by his wisdom and objectivity. His sense of fair play, should make him acceptable to the opposition also. The chief minister, for his part, should appreciate the constitutional mandate of the governor and do nothing that detracts from the dignity of the office of governor. Any differences between them have to be sorted out, in private, through free and frank discussions.
My experiences as governor
I had faced several confronting situations during my tenure as Governor of Tamil Nadu, two decades ago. In my very first address to the assembly, the draft of the address sent to me by the government contained vituperative criticism of the main opposition party. If I had agreed to read, it would have made me persona non grata with the entire opposition. I had obtained the consent of the chief minister to amend the draft in a manner that I would retain the sense of the criticism without the objectionable portions and their language.
I had deliberately delayed assent to a couple of controversial legislative bills with the full knowledge of the chief minister in order to blunt the criticism against them by receiving representations against them and explaining the constitutional position of the governor as also their constitutional validity. In a few cases of appointment of vice chancellors, I had persuaded the chief minister to give up her first choices on incontrovertible grounds and selected from the remaining names in the panels recommended by the selection committees. There were other occasions when I could persuade her to change her stand.
In all these discussions I had acknowledged the primacy of the chief minister in the governance of the state and convinced her that my advice was in her own interest, as also of the State.
Governors have to be ever cognisant of the elected nature of the office of chief minister and refrain from being patronising and partisan. For their part, chief ministers should appreciate that governors have constitutional obligations to the centre as much as they should have the interests of the state at heart.
