Need to Revisit Role of Governors : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 Need to Revisit Role of Governors

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

The Hans India (11-09-2022)

Independent India had the distinguished reputation of appointing high profile, eminent and persons who excelled in their fields impartially as Governors of states in the beginning for quite some time. The practice has been steadily given up for political considerations in due course at least in few cases which now is on the increase. Congress party, BJP as well as the UPA and NDA governments at center are equally responsible for this.     

To name a few eminent persons among others who held the posts as Governors: Nightingale of India Sarojini Naidu a proponent of civil rights, her daughter Padmaja Naidu a freedom fighter, Nehru's sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit an Indian diplomat and a onetime President of the United Nations General Assembly, Sharda Mukherjee, Pratibha Patil who later became President of India, CM Trivedi a former Civil servant, Shankar Dayal Sharma a constitutional expert who later became Vice-President and President of India, Zakir Hussain an Indian economist who later became President of India, Gopalkrishna Gandhi a former diplomat, Mehdi Nawaz Jung an Indian Bureaucrat, VV Giri associated with labor and trade union movement  who later became Vice-President and President, C Rangarajan noted economist, ESL Narasimhan former Civil Servant etc. All of them excelled in their role.  

Against this context, it has become imperative to look at the Indian Constitution may be appropriate particularly with reference to role and limits to Governor’s duties and responsibilities not to speak of powers in the ever-changing political scenario. Indian Constitution is the product of thorough study, deep and mature considerations as well as extensive debate and deliberation. Notwithstanding this the hundred and four amendments to the constitution since its adoption in 1950 is in fact meant to keep the Constitution dynamically dynamic. The Constituent Assembly had in its mind specifically the concept of union with a strong centre but within the broad framework of cooperative federalism. However, our politico-legal infrastructure is a federal one. It stands characterized as a Unitary State with subsidiary federal features rather than federal state with subsidiary unitary features. 

In pursuance of this unitary spirit, our constitutional entities are devised and framed by the framers of the Constitution and the entity of Governor has been devised and framed on the same tone and tenor. All the pros and cons pertaining to its provisions as well as the nature of appointment were elaborately discussed in the Constituent Assembly before giving it a final touch. Draft Constitution suggested two alternatives, namely, appointment of Governor by the President from a panel of four candidates to be elected by the members of the State Legislature or direct election by the people of the state. 

Ultimately the framers of the Constitution resolved that under the new constitutional scheme, the Governor was to be formal constitutional head with strictly limited powers that in the discharge of almost all his or her functions would be required to follow the advice of his or her Ministry. The Governor thus emerged as a nominal, titular constitutional head appointed by the President of India and holding office during pleasure of the President in accordance with article 155 of the Constitution. But in effect Governor is appointed by the President on the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to him only as provided under article 74 of the Constitution. Thus, persons of political affiliation to the ruling party at centre, irrespective of their constitutional knowledge and eminence are appointed.    

Due to this, the appointment of Governor by the President makes he or she, the true nominee of the Centre and more or less the agent of the Centre than to work hand in hand with the democratically elected government and head of the State, that is, the Chief Minister through a popular vote to which he or she presides. The practical fact is that the President’s part in nomination of the Governor is mere a formality. Way back, in the lighter side, it was the complaint of Dr Rajender Prasad, the first President of India, that he often read the news of appointment of the Governors in the Press and was officially informed later!!!

Though the Governor is the executive head of the State and a part of the State Legislature and the administration of the State is carried on in his or her name, the people of the State or their representatives have no say in the matter of his or her appointment.   While the President is elected by the representatives of the people, namely, the Members of Parliament and the Members of the State Legislatures, the Governor is merely appointed by the President which really means, by the Union Council of Ministers and literally holds office during the pleasure of Prime Minister. In a way no security of his or her tenure.   

The words in Article 163 that ‘there shall be Council of Ministers to advise the Governor in the exercise of his or her functions’ really means that the Governor shall act on the advice of the Council of Ministers only. The words in Article 164 of the Constitution that the Ministers ‘shall hold office during pleasure of the Governor’ are not intended to give the Governor the unlimited and untrammeled power over the tenure of the Ministers.

It was observed in the Constituent Assembly that the Gubernatorial Candidate should be of such calibre whose ability, wisdom and rectitude could not be questioned. Jawaharlal Nehru opined in the constituent assembly that it would be definitely better if the Governor was not so intimately connected with the local politics of the state or with the factions in the state and offered the view that it would be better to have a more detached figure, obviously a figure that is acceptable to the state. He or she must not be known to be part of the party machinery of the state to which he or she is the Governor.

The intention of the framers of the Constitutions was clear that they foresighted an impartial personality for the office of the Governor. Sarkaria Commission after reviewing the 30 years span of working of Constitution from the context of Centre State relations made recommendations in regards to appointment of state Governors. They provided a criterion which is required to be followed by the constitutional functionaries while making appointment of Governors in the State.

National Commission to Review the working of the Constitution recommended that the Governor should be appointed by the President, after consultation with Chief Minister of the concerned State. According to the Commission which observed that the role of Governors has come in for severe criticism, sometimes bordering on condemnation, in the context of reports they submit under and within the meaning of Article 356, many a Governor has not covered himself or herself with glory in that behalf.

Notwithstanding the recommendations guiding the discharge of their functions in the Sarkaria Commission Report and the decisions of the Conference of Governors, many Governors continue to behave in a manner not consistent with true spirit of the Constitution. Such examples are in abundance and more so in the recent past wherein several governors have almost become party spoke persons and converted Raj Bhavans in to party offices to which they belonged prior to joining politics. Many of them even rewarded for this work with higher political appointments.   

Of late some Governors are even holding press meets and openly criticizing the State Government (At whose instance?) unaware of the fact that she or he is presiding over the criticism against his or her own Government. Is it due to lack of knowledge of Constitution and conventions or overenthusiasm to please persons responsible for their appointment? Will this not lead to an unhealthy convention and precedence. Political analysts to respond.

As long as the present arrangement of appointing Governors continue or until an amendment is made, it is better if the Constitutional provisions and thereby the limits specified therein are adhered in letter and spirit. Let the students of social science, political science, public administration and constitution are not put to any confusion please. END