When governors break moulds, who pulls strings?

In a landmark judgment delivered last year, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court laid out the scope of the governor’s powers. The first citizens of the states are endowed with a host of discretionary powers but the question of who holds these powerful men and women accountable remains a mystery. In south India, the problem seems to be exacerbated with P Sathasivam, Kiran Bedi and now, Banwarilal Purohit coming into direct and serious conflict with elected legislators. Even in the cases of Keshari Nath Tripathi in Bihar and Vidyasagar Rao in Tamil Nadu, both have raised eyebrows by being present or absent at politically crucial times. Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa in Arunachal Pradesh and V Shanmuganathan in Meghalaya were accused of bringing disrepute to the office. Across the country, the present cohort of Raj Bhavan occupants seems to be mired in one controversy or another.

Governors have been accused of being over-involved in state politics as well as missing altogether from the scene of action. The case of Puducherry’s lieutenant governor Kiran Bedi micro-managing the elected executive has been a sore point in Centre-state relations. There have been incidents where Bedi, having rejected or overruled cabinet recommendations, has complained to the Union home minister of "constraints" faced by her. The Constituent Assembly had certainly never considered the problem of a governor facing constraints as that was definitely not within the scope of how executive power should be exercised in a state/ Union territory.

Another interesting case is that of governor Keshari Nath Tripathi, who was while holding additional charge of Bihar, was present at the right place and at the right time when chief minister Nitish Kumar tendered his resignation and was seamlessly re-sworn in within 24 hours. In an identical scenario, governor Vidyasagar Rao, who was away from Chennai when V K Sasikala staked her claim, was fortuitously present in Chennai when the opposing factions of Edappadi K Palaniswami and O Panneerselvam patched up.

The institution of office of the governor came under a great deal of deliberation in the Constituent Assembly of India. There were a number of amendments suggested to even enable people to vote for their governors, in a practice similar to that in the US. Speaking finally, Dr BR Ambedkar reiterated his support in favour of a governor who is "purely constitutional" and one "without power of interference in the administration of the province". On the force of these submissions, the Constituent Assembly voted for a governor who "shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal". Yet, over the past 70 years, we find that this has given rise to governors who have become grateful and indebted nominees of the Centre.

After the Supreme Court verdict in S R Bommai vs Union case, the Centre has been circumspect in applying Article 356, but in the recent years, the actions of governors have breached their constitutional powers. The Supreme Court, in the case of B P Singhal vs Union of India 2010, rejected the contention of the government that, "governors should be in sync with the policies of the Union government or should subscribe to the ideology of the party in power at the Centre".

Tamil Nadu has championed the cause of co-operative federalism and pushed the Union government to restructure Centre-state relations to cede greater state autonomy. With regard to the appointment of governor, the P V Rajamannar Committee recommended that "the governor should be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the state cabinet or alternatively in consultation with the high power body specially constituted for this purpose". The consistent position of regional parties has been that governor should not act as the agent of the Union government. They must function within the perimeters of the Constitution and respect principles of state autonomy. Else, PM Modi’s the famous motto of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ now stands in danger of being mistaken as: Minimum government, maximum governor.

(The author is an advocate and a spokesperson of the DMK)