The Governor's role is overwhelmingly that of a "friend, philosopher and guide" to his Council of Ministers with unrivalled discretion.
Whoever said different political strokes for different political folks was dead on. Specially when it comes to the high Constitutional office of the Governor. Wherein handpicked loyalists do whatever their mai baaps sitting on India's Raj gaddi want. Never mind, if the Governor has been reduced to being the Centre's chaprasi. Governance, after all is one big nautanki which has rewritten the basic time-honoured rules of authority and turned democracy on its head. Bend them, break them, who cares!
Instances are aplenty. Circa 2008: Meghalaya, Circa 2007: Karnataka, Circa 2005: Goa, Bihar and Jharkhand. The common denominator? Each Governor interpreting or should one say misinterpreting the rule book any which way he wanted, drawing his own conclusions based more often than not on delusions as long as he and his benefactors at the Centre could rule the roost. Meghalaya. The Governor SS Sidhu has attracted charges of unfair practice because he invited the single largest party, the Congress to form the Government while brushing aside the claims of the NCP-led Meghalaya Progressive Alliance (MPA) which had a support of 31 of the 60 MLAs before him. Earning the ire of the NCP, which moved the Supreme Court against him for "clear breach and violation of the provisions of the Constitution and the convention followed of calling a group/alliance having the majority of legislators to form the government."
Undoubtedly, Governor Sidhu was correct in inviting the Congress as it had emerged as the single largest party. Recall, 1996 when the then President Shankar Dayal Sharma had invited the BJP as it too had the maximum number of MPs. No matter, that the Saffron Sangh lost the vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha. Besides, the NCP's post-poll alliance with other regional parties to form the MPA smacked of an afterthought to partake the crumbs of office. At the same time, Sidhu was wrong in giving the Congress clear 10 days to prove their strength on the floor of the Assembly and inviting the charge of willy nilly being party to horse-trading that was bound to take place.
Arguably, if the Congress had the numbers as claimed by it, why wait for 10 days to prove its majority in the Assembly? Is one to infer that the 30 MLAs paraded by the MPA before the Governor was a false claim? Or had the Governor followed the Centre's diktat to invite the Congress and give it time to muster a majority. Why blame Siddhu?
Remember what Governor Rameshwar Thakur did in Karnataka last year after the BJP-JD(S) coalition paraded 129 MLAs, which is more than half of the 225-member Assembly, at Bangalore's Raj Bhawan? Instead of doing the Constitutional right thing of reviving the suspended State Assembly and asking the BJP-JD(S) coalition to prove their majority on the floor of the House, as opined by the Supreme Court in the landmark SR Bommai judgment, first he made them wait for over a week, then stated that he had to "consult the Centre."
Forgetting that the right course of action was to revoke President's rule and swear-in a BJP-led coalition Government. Why? He had to take instructions from Delhi on what to do next. Also, most oddly, thereafter Governor Thakur, sent a 'statement of facts' to the Centre rather than 'his report' and recommendation. On the facetious plea that the BJP-JD(S) formation could lead to "horse-trading of the worst kind."
Bluntly, isn't this the MPA's charge against the Congress in Meghalaya and yet the Governor Sidhu invited it to form the Government? Just as his fellow Congressmen Governors SC Jamir, Buta Singh and Syed Sibtey Razi had done in 2005 in Goa, Bihar and Jharkhand. In Goa, the former Chief Minister of Nagaland, SC Jamir was handpicked by the Congress as Governor to watch out for the Party's "interests" in the BJP-ruled Goa. In less than four months, he delivered to his "mai baaps" in Delhi what they wanted. He dismissed the Parrikar-led BJP Government which had proved its majority on the floor of the Assembly and swore-in the Pratapsinh Rane-led Congress Government in a late night drama. Not only that. He gave Rane 30 days to prove his majority, as against three days to Parrikar. After Rane won his trust vote (rightly or wrongly), Jamir recommended President's Rule reportedly at the behest of the Centre.
The abuse of the gubernatorial Constitutional power touched a new low in Jharkhand where Governor Syed Sibtey Razi, former Congress Rajya Sabha MP did one better in 2005. Ignoring the fact that the BJP-led NDA paraded a clear majority of 41 MLAs in the 81-member Assembly, he appointed the JMM-Congress leader as the Chief Minister on the basis of a list of 42 MLAs. The list included two Independents who had only three hours earlier committed their support for the BJP-led NDA. Even after meeting these MLAs individually, the Governor swore-in the JMM leader, Shibhu Soren as the Chief Minister. As long as it earned Razi kudos from Delhi, it didn't matter that his action was a gross violation of his high office. Matters didn't rest there. The BJP leadership smuggled out its brood of 41 MLAs and paraded them before the then President Kalam at Rashtrapati Bhavan to prove the Governor's malafide who was summoned by the President for an explanation.
In stepped the Apex Court leading to the installation of the BJP Government. Words fail when it comes to the outrageous and unprecedented midnight dissolution of Bihar's Legislative Assembly and continuance of President's rule in the State. Thanks to the Centre brazenly used its jo hukam darbari Governor Buta Singh to break all the rules. When reports of the NDA inching towards formation of a Government in the State trickled in courtesy defections from the Steel Minister Paswan's LJP, Governor Buta Singh hurriedly recommended dissolution of the Assembly, the Union Cabinet promptly accepted it and President Kalam, away in Moscow, speedily gave his assent. Worse, Buta Singh's action was based on bazaar gossip of horse-trading. Shattering in one fell stroke the glass ceiling of his high Constitutional office. No matter that he himself was indicted by a Court for horse-trading in the infamous JMM case. Expectedly, this new nadir has once again raised questions about Governor's role, his qualifications and his Constitutional obligations and duties. Raising a moot point: Are they the Centre's chaprasis? Or, are they the keepers of the people's faith as the Constitutional head of their respective States. Importantly, are there any laid down clear rules to underscore some semblance, coherence and uniformity in gubernatorial actions? A charter of directions and guidelines. Sadly, in a milieu of you scratch my back and I yours, over 60% of the present lot of Governors are active politicians and the rest 'pliable' bureaucrats, police officers and Army Generals. Thus, the Governor, willy-nilly, has become a convenient tool of the Centre. Specially in Opposition-ruled States. He runs the administration by proxy. By playing the I-spy game--petty politricking, gross interference, open partisanship--at the Centre's behest. Sending for files, summoning Ministers and bureaucrats. To hear, entice, provoke and register the voice of dissent against the State Government to their political patrons in Delhi. Bluntly, make life hell for the Chief Minister at every step and use it as a springboard to return to active politics. Top experts affirm that the basic role of the Governor is not just to represent the Centre but, as the head of the State, to serve his people and fight their battles with the Centre, not vice versa. He has to bear in mind the overall national interest, not partisan party interests. The Constitution empowers him to influence the decisions of an elected Government by giving him the right "to be consulted, to warn and encourage" His role is overwhelmingly that of a "friend, philosopher and guide" to his Council of Ministers with unrivalled discretion. As noted by Sarkaria Commission and endorsed by the Supreme Court, the Governor's role is that of "a Constitutional sentinel and that of vital link between the Union and the State...Being the holder of an independent Constitutional office, the Governor is not a subordinate or subservient agent of the Union Government." In sum, the office of the Governor desperately needs to be revamped and restored to its old glory. Keeping in mind the trends of coalition politics, it is time now to lay down clear rules and a charter of directions. It needs to be underscored that the ultimate test of a Party to form a Government does not lie in petty politricking by the Governor in the State's Raj Bhawan nor in a Party parading it's numbers before the Governor but in the Party's ability to command a majority and win the floor test in the Assembly. All in all, we need to remember that the Governor has a distinct role in ensuring the country's unity and the well-being of the people of his State. But he is no chaprasi or a jee huzoor.
Poonam I Kaushish, INFA
Print This Page
Terms
and Conditions