Uphold Constitutional Spirit, follow customs
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
The Hans India
(13-11-2022)
Article 200 of Indian Constitution
dealing with Assent to Bills, specifies that, after the passage of the bill in
the legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor who in turn
shall declare either he or she assents to the Bill or withholds assent or
reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President. When the Bill is
withheld, Governor may, as soon as possible returns the Bill together
with a message requesting that the legislature to reconsider. Withholding for a
non-specified time is not spirit of Constitution or precedent of a healthy
convention.
Constitutional conventions are rules
of good political behavior and are typically rules of self-restraint, not
exercising powers. Constitution's spirit is the Preamble, and the guiding
spirit for Indian Nation on the touchstone of Basic Features of Constitution of
India. Decision of Governor shall be confidential and shall remain as a secret
correspondence between Governor and Chief Minister. As against this, public
disclosures of a difference of opinion in press meet, perhaps, may not be a healthy
convention for democracy. Constitutional experts may ponder.
The British Model of Royal Assent to
Bills, if we take as an example, since India follows the Westminster democratic system, lots of lessons may
be learnt. Royal assent, which is more or less like Rashtrapathi at the
center and Governor at the states in India giving assent to bills passed in the
legislatures, is the method by which a monarch formally approves an act of the
legislature. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, this does
not happen at all. When a Bill has been approved by a majority in the House of
Commons and the House of Lords it is formally agreed to by the Crown which
turns a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the United
Kingdom. In India also same either in center by Rashtrapathi or in states by
Governor.
In Britain, Parliament gradually
forced monarchs to accept PM as the real executive and has effectively
dispersed the powers of the Crown and strengthening PM and Parliament. Constitutional conventions have further removed
the monarch from wielding power to the right to be just kept informed. The
monarch whose role is nominal, will be able to advise, generally does this
in secret, to change draft laws. Not in media conferences as is done by
some governors.
In this context, what would have
happened, had the Monarch or the Crown of Britain, which is the mother of
parliamentary democracies, chosen to take a conflicting mode of relationship in
his or her functioning with the Prime Minister, the real executive? For that
matter even in India, the largest parliamentary democracy in the world, what
would have happened had the Rashtrapathi or President of India beginning with
Dr Babu Rajendra Prasad till this day, was in conflict with Prime Minister? It
would have been either collapse of democratic institutions paving way for
anarchy or dictatorship or breakdown of constitutional mechanism. Thank God it
never happened. Why then in states a different picture and who is responsible?
Most of the constitutional experts
often quote the experience of Britain the model of which India by and large adopted.
Those who are occupying constitutional positions in India, like that of
Governor, may please glance into the genesis and evolution of British Monarch,
that can be compared with Rashtrapathi of India whose relationship with Prime
Minister is akin that of Governor and Chief Minister in the states. Constitutional
provisions can be interpreted but conventions go a long away in maintaining
relationships.
The British Monarch is the head of
British state, the highest representative of the UK. Similarly, the Rashtrapathi
of India, is elected by all the elected peoples’ representatives of Lok Sabha
and State Legislatures as well as the Rajya Sabha and thus is more
representative in character, even more than Prime Minister. Along with the
House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the
institution of Parliament. In India too, the Rashtrapathi is an integral part
of both Houses of Parliament. Either in the case of British Monarch vis-à-vis the Prime Minister or in the
case of Indian Rashtrapathi vis-à-vis Prime Minister, well laid
conventions are in place. Both
these institutions take little direct part in government.
This however is not the case with
relationships between an elected Chief Minister of an Indian State and the purely
nominated Governor, who irrespective of any government at center since
independence, was prompted, guided and directed by party in power. This has
been the reason why many a times, if not all, quite a good number of governors
actively or passively played in trouble creating role in destabilizing the duly
elected state governments. Examples are plenty. Of late this has been on the
increase. Hence to draw a parallel, one has to understand the history of mother
of parliamentary democracies and how elected government is respected
there.
The British system of government is
based on an uncodified constitution, a type of constitution where the
fundamental rules often take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a
variety of statutes and legal instruments. The British constitution consists of
many documents and most importantly for the evolution of the institutions. It
is based on customs known as constitutional conventions that became accepted
practice. The relationships between the Prime Minister and the sovereign,
Parliament and Cabinet are defined largely by these unwritten conventions of
the constitution. And hence never there was a friction in the real sense.
Fortunately, the same with the case
with Union government in India. None of the Presidents ever resorted to
dismissals of Governments at the center by invoking discretionary powers, the
way few Governors (Prompted by center) did in states. None of the Presidents
including those elected during one party in power and continued later after a
different party came to power like Neelam Sanjiva Reddy or like Pranab
Mukherji, were controversial in discharging their duties and responsibilities.
Why not the same with governors is a million Dollar question.
Many of the British Prime Ministers’
executive and legislative powers are actually royal prerogatives, but continue
to derive from historic and modern constitutional conventions, which are still
formally vested in the sovereign, but as a mere formality. The sovereign who has
the power to appoint the Prime Minister appoints an individual who commands the
support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that
has a majority in that House. Same is the practice in India.
The British sovereign’s authority to dismiss
the Prime Minister, never ever happened except once in 1834, when William IV
dismissed Lord Melbourne. Since then, Prime Ministers have only left office
upon their resignation, which they are expected to offer to the monarch upon
losing their majority in the House of Commons. Similarly, by convention,
appointing and dismissing other ministers is done only on the recommendation of
the Prime Minister.
The position of Prime Minister was not
created. It evolved slowly and organically over three hundred years due to
numerous Acts of Parliament, Constitutional conventions, political
developments, and accidents of history. The office is therefore best understood
from a historical perspective. Although the sovereign was not stripped of their
ancient prerogative powers and legally remained the head of government,
politically it gradually became necessary for him or her to govern through a Prime
Minister. When this could happen to a monarch why not to governor?
It is high time that the governors in
India take a leaf out of British Model and modify functioning of institution of
Governor and start feeling that conventions and constitutional spirit is more
important than mere provisions. It is better if Governors follow the footsteps
of Presidents of India, if not British Monarch, in maintaining cordial, healthy
and democratic relations with the elected executive heads to uphold the
democratic spirit of country. END
No comments:
Post a Comment