Critically examine the role of Governor in recent times. (UPSC CSE Mains 2016 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
After about quarter of a century (1990-2014) of relative calm, the governor’s role and powers have again become a controversial issue in Indian politics. This of course coincides with the appearance of a single party with a comfortable majority at the centre. During the last few years, the governors of Tamilnadu, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra and, of course, West Bengal have played their roles in such a way as to make them highly controversial without necessarily adding to the glory of the office. If we had thought that the sharp controversies around the constitutionality of governors’ actions on many occasions during the 1960s and 1970s had unobtrusively created certain healthy conventions for governors in later decades to follow, we have been proved wrong. The negative image of the state governors as above all “an agent of the centre” has proved difficult to erase. The present controversies have been around
- the issues of selecting the chief minister,
- determining the timing for proving legislative majority,
- demanding information about day-to-day administration,
- taking apparently long time in giving assent to bills or reserving bills for the President,
- commenting adversely on specific policies of the state government and exercising powers of the governor as the chancellor of state universities.
Various important and well-intentioned attempts were made both to understand the role of the governor in our federal democratic set up and to recommend ways to make this institution conducive to strengthening center-state relations; for instance,
- SR Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994:The case was about the limits to the Governor’s powers in dismissing a state government under Article 356 of the Constitution. The floor of the Assembly is the only forum that should test the majority of the government of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor.
- Rameshwar Prasad Case, 2006: Supreme Court was called upon to pronounce its verdict on the validity of the proclamation of President’s Rule and the dissolution of the Assembly in Bihar in 2005. The SC held that the Governor could not decide based on his subjective assessments.
- On removal of governor: BP Singhal vs Union of India: The Supreme Court ruled that even though the President could dismiss a Governor without having to provide reasons for doing so, this power could not be exercised in an “arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner”
- Sarkaria Commission Report (1988):Important recommendations- Governor should be a detached figure without intense political links or should not have taken part in politics in recent past, Governors must not be removed before completion of their five-year tenure, except in rare and compelling circumstances
- Venkatachaliah Commission (2002): Important recommendations: Governor’s appointment should be entrusted to a committee comprising the prime minister, the home minister, the speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chief minister of the concerned state, if governor to be removed before completion of term, the central government should do so only after consultation with the Chief Minister.
- Punchhi Commission (2010): The phrase “during the pleasure of the President” should be deleted from the Constitution; Governor should be removed only by a resolution of the state legislature.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies