The fight between governors and governments in rebel-held states has flared up again, with the role of governors coming under intense scrutiny in several states including Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Kerala. The fight includes not only the governor’s return of the bill, verbal rebukes and complaints, but also now legal challenges.
Due to the constant controversy in Tamil Nadu, the Governor recently became dissatisfied with the speech prepared by the state government and refused to read it in Parliament. In 2022, the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) went so far as to submit a memorandum to the president seeking the governor’s removal. Similarly, in Kerala, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M)-led government has passed a resolution to bring an ordinance or special order to remove the governor from the post of university chancellor. The state governments claim that the governors of their respective states are promoting the political agenda of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In March 2023, opposition parties had even written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi complaining that the Center was “misusing” the governor’s office.
The incident raises questions about whether the role of the governor is not in line with the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
Constitutional provisions and reality
The post of governor, as a nominal head representative of the president, was devised by the framers of the Constitution with the purpose of promoting centrist state relations. According to Article 153 of the Constitution, each state must have a governor appointed by the president. Although the governor is the constitutional head of state, he is expected to act on the advice of the State Council of Ministers. This arrangement worked well in the 1950s and 1960s when the same party was in power at the Center and in the states.
However, in later years, as different political systems reached the center and assumed power in different states, conflicts between governors and states became apparent. The common concept among the states was that governors were more aligned with the national government than with the state governments. Various incidents during the Center’s Congress rule that imposed presidential rule in states also contributed to such acrimonious relations well into the 1990s. However, in 1994, Bommai The judgment limited the Center’s power to arbitrarily remove state governments.
Chief Advocate Aparajita Singh of the Supreme Court said, “The law regarding the role of the governor is well settled. The governor is usually bound by the recommendations of the state council of ministers. Recently, the SC in the Punjab case As held, the Governor is bound by the recommendations of the Council of Ministers.” “As the unelected head of the state, the governor is endowed with certain constitutional powers. However, he cannot use these powers to interfere with the regular law-making process by the state legislature.” Ms Singh added.
recent flashpoints
The most recent showdown occurred earlier this week when Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi refused to read out a speech prepared by the government for his inaugural address in the state assembly. Mr. Ravi was not satisfied with his speech in which he highlighted the state government’s achievements and criticized the Center on Goods and Services Tax (GST) rules. The speech also asked the Center to release various funds for the states. Ravi had come under fire from the DMK government last year for not acting on 12 bills sent to it by the state government. It was only after the SC judgment in a similar case in Punjab that he took action under the bill.
Since Telangana Governor Tamilisai Sundararajan took office in 2019, there has been a fierce battle with the former Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) government in Telangana led by K. Chandrashekhar Rao. Relations between the governor’s office and the state government have deteriorated since Soundararajan rejected his request for political nomination to the Legislative Council in September last year. Earlier this week, the Telangana HC announced that it would look into the issue of whether the governor has the power to veto names given by the government under Article 171(5) of the Constitution. “This article does not give her such independent authority; she must act with the aid and advice of her Council of Ministers,” the court said.
In November last year, the Supreme Court had recommended Kerala’s Arif Mohammed Khan to decide a case related to the Punjab governor’s inaction on the bill. The Supreme Court responded to a petition by the Kerala government seeking appropriate orders from the court regarding the governor’s inaction on as many as eight bills passed by the state assembly and submitted with the governor’s assent.
Supreme Court advocate Aditya Bharat Manubharwala said, “Usually, the governor acts on the advice of the chief minister.However, Article 200 of the Constitution gives the governor absolute power to refer bills.” “We recognize discretionary authority.” The fact that this power, which the President of India was asked to reconsider, was not restricted by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India in a recent judgment (Punjab vs. Governor of Punjab) to further strengthen this position. ”
resolve a dispute
In its November 10 last year judgment in the Punjab case, the SC had asked the governor to take a decision on the bill passed by the assembly. The Supreme Court clearly spelled out the limitations that apply to a governor’s suit when a bill passed by the state legislature is sent to the governor for his assent. The SC said that since the governor is the nominal head of state, he does not have the power to veto legislative acts of the elected government or to approve indefinitely bills duly passed by the parliament. .
The 1988 Sarkaria Commission and the National Commission to Review the Implementation of the Constitution have in the past recommended ways to prevent such conflicts between governors and state governments. The Sarkaria Committee echoed the general view that some governorships were being misused by the Center “for its own political ends”.
Don’t ignore the governor’s post
In the current climate, with governors frequently accused of partisan attitudes and large amounts of tax money spent on maintaining the equipment of celebrated chiefs, the question often asked is: What does the governor’s office mean in modern times? The question is whether there is. “The governor serves as a bridge between the federal and state governments, bringing much-needed administrative harmony to this vast and diverse country,” Manubharwala said. “Governors have guidelines in the exercise of their powers through countless Supreme Court judgments. Also, in Indian federalism, state governments have always been on an equal footing with respect to the Union of India. It shows that it remains second.”
On the one hand, there is conflict between the Governor and the state government, and on the other hand, as was recently seen at the wedding of Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s grandson, the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and several There is also some obvious bonhomie, as was seen when ministers attended. State ministers flew to Indore to congratulate the newlyweds. While some friction is understandable given the political affiliation of the incumbent, ultimately it is important that dignity and civility are maintained.
(Bharti Mishra Nath is a senior journalist)
Disclaimer: These are the author’s personal opinions.