Examine the issue of bitterness between states and Governors. Identify the efforts that have been made to address concerns over the alleged partisan role played by Governors.
Friction Points in Governor-State Relations
- Governor is envisaged as an apolitical head who must act on the advice of the council of ministers. However, the Governor enjoys certain discretionary powers granted under the Constitution. For example:
- Giving or withholding assent to a Billpassed by the state legislature,
- Determining the time neededfor a party to prove its majority, or which party must be called first to do so, generally after a hung verdict in an election.
- There are no provisions laid down for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publiclywhen there is a difference of opinion.
- The Governor has a 5-year tenure, he can remain in office only until the pleasure of the President.
- In 2001, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, held that the Governor owes his appointment and his continuation to the Union.
- There is the apprehension that he is likely to act in accordance with the instructions received from the Union Council of Ministers.
- In the Constitution, there are no guidelines for exercise of the Governor’s powers,including for appointing a CM or dissolving the Assembly.
- There is no limit set for how long a Governor can withhold assent to a Bill.
- The Governor sends a report to the centre which forms the basis of the Union cabinet’s recommendations to the President for invoking Article 356 (President’s Rule).
To Address Concerns over the Alleged Partisan Role Played by Governors
- Changes regarding the Selection of Governors:
- The National Commission To Review the Working of the Constitution appointed by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government in 2000 suggested that the Governor of a State should be appointed by the President, after consultation with the Chief Minister of that State.
- Proposal by Sarkaria Commission:
- The Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to look into Centre-state relations, proposed that the Vice President of India and Speaker of Lok Sabha should be consulted by the Prime Ministerin the selection of Governors.
- Punchhi Committee Proposal:
- The Justice Madan Mohan Punchhi Committee, constituted in 2007 on Centre-state relations, proposed in its report that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Vice President,Speaker, and the concerned Chief Minister should choose the Governor.
- The Punchhi Committee recommended deleting the “Doctrine of Pleasure” from the Constitution,but backed the right of the Governor to sanction the prosecution of ministers against the advice of the state government.
- It also argued for a provision for impeachment of the Governor by the state legislature.
Looking ahead
- While Governors may differ with the contents of a Bill and may exercise the available constitutional options, they should not use their powers to stall legislation unpalatable to them.
- It is time to implement the principle that the M.M. Punchhi Commission, which reviewed Centre-State relations, recommended that Governors should not be burdened with the role of Chancellors.
- Governors seem to have an exaggerated notion of their own rolesunder the Constitution. They are expected to defend the Constitution and may use their powers to caution elected regimes against violating the Constitution, but this does not mean that they can use the absence of a time-frame for decision-making and the discretionary space given to them to function as a parallel power centre.
Next
previous
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies