Anil Anand
The jury is still out on the role of Karnataka Governor Vaju Bhai Vala in handling the politically fragile situation in the face of a split verdict. Whether he was right in inviting BJP, the party to which he originally belonged to, on the premise of being the single largest party, or should he have invited the post poll combine of Congress-JD(s) commanding clear majority? The fact that BJP could not prove its majority and chief minister B S Yeddyurappa left the field without a fight and the fact that the Congress-JD(s) fell short of the need to prove majority as BJP staged a walk-out before the head count was ordered, has once again brought the Governor’s office into focus.
And the question, has the high Constitutional office outlived its utility and need to be abolished or a need to plug loopholes to protect the office’s sanctity being compromised by the politically motivated occupants of Raj Bhawans.
The answers to many questions that have arisen on account of the misuse of Governors’ office lie in the recommendations of Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria commission that did a phenomenal work in relooking into the maladies that had crept in the Centre-state relationship particularly in regard to the Governor’s office. It is ironic that every political party coming to power at the Centre swears by the panel’s findings and vows to follow these but ultimately go awry.
Who according to Sarkaria Commssion recommendations should be appointed as a Governor?
He/she should be eminent in some walk of life. He/she should be a person from outside the state. He/she should be a detached figure and not too intimately connected with local politics of the state. And lastly but more importantly, he/she should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.
And yet another significant recommendation was that the President should appoint the Governor of a state, after consultation with the chief minister of that particular state.
Most of the issues related to the alleged misuse of the Governor’s office would not have arisen had these recommendations been followed in letter and spirit at least on the count of impartiality of the incumbents. There was large scale misuse of Raj Bhawans before the panel was set up in June 1983 and gave its findings in January 1988. The trend continued thereafter till date.
Contrary to the expectations of the framers of the Constitution, Raj Bhawans have become power centres and hub of political activity particularly when the situations are fragile. Such a role for the Governors was definitely envisaged by the British before Independence as they were to act as power brokers of the Viceroy sitting in Delhi but certainly not in the subsequent Constitutional scheme of things.
On the issue of Governor’s office the political parties to satiate their greed for control over more and more states, have demolished the strong sense of propriety attached to this high office. The appointment of rank political activists has made their task easier. The Congress did it, the political fronts such as the Janata Party, National Front and United Front did it and so have the BJP dispensations under A B Vajpayee and now Narendra Modi followed the same course.
Party loyalists as Governors, it is the bane of many ailments afflicting Raj Bhawans across the states. Increasingly, the Governors have been ending up becoming agents of the Central government and more precisely that of the ruling party giving a go by the local sentiments.
It is in this context that eminent Constitutional expert and former Secretary General Lok Sabha Subash C Kashyap had rightly observed: “A Governor is definitely the agent of the Union but should never be the agent of the Central Government.” This observation is as relevant currently as it was during the past.
From the Governors appointment to their removal or dismissal it is the same sordid story being followed by ruling dispensations irrespective of their political colouring.
There are innumerable examples of the Governors misusing powers vested in them. The most infamous being dismissal of S R Bommai ( Janata Dal) government and incidentally in Karnataka in 1989 wherein the Governor refused to allow a democratically elected chief minister to prove his majority on the floor of the Assembly. Later the Bommai case judgement of the Supreme Court became a milestone in the legislative history of the country.
Whichever party comes to power at the Centre, they have the same approach towards the Governor’s office. Increasingly, and since the time of Indira Gandhi, the Raj Bhawans have become parking places for aged and disgruntled politicians of the ruling clique or its agents.
The present controversy created by the BJP-led NDA Government at the Centre has not created a stir. The only surprise is that under the fresh dictum of Prime Minister Narenda Modi citing his commitment to clean politics and governance model, one expected the Governors’ role to have been dealt with differently. However, developments in Goa, Meghalaya, Manipur, Uttrakhand and now Karnataka, have dashed all hopes of restoration of Raj Bhawan’s sanctity.
Focusing on the Governors’ issue, Mr Modi and his government has picked up from where UPA or any other predecessor government had left be it their appointment or removal. Arbitrariness is the norm with Governors appointment and removal. The processes totally shrouded in opaqueness, has added to the problem.
Ideally speaking under the Constitutional arrangement a Governor is supposed to act as its defender and not as the agent of the Centre. But a strong assumption that the Governor acts as an employee or an agent of the Centre has of late been gaining currency. The problem has been getting aggravated when the defender of the Constitution becomes a tool to further someone’s political interest in a particular state which has happened on many occasions in the past. Does this warrant a fresh look on the entire gamut of issues related to the appointment, functioning and removal of the Governors? Certainly yes!
As recommended by Justice Sarkaria commission, there is a strong case for appointing eminent but apolitical persons as Governors if not abolishing the office altogether as some experts have been arguing in the past since he or she acts as a bridge between the Centre and the states. There is a strong case for retaining the office of the Governor but there is a compelling need to follow the basic parameters on selection of a gubernatorial nominee.
A bigger casualty is the other provision that the candidate should be detached figure and not too intimately connected with the local politics and that he or she should be a person who has not taken too great part in politics generally, and particularly in the recent past. The past appointees of the UPA Government who were axed by the Modi Government and the latter’s own appointees violated all these conditions.
Furthermore, his or her tenure of office must be guaranteed and should not be disturbed except for extremely compelling reasons and if any action is to be taken against him/her then he/she must be given a reasonable opportunity for explanation against the grounds on which he is sought to be removed.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel