Political Diary

New Delhi, 25 October 2022

 Tittle-Tattle

NOT DONE, GUV

By Poonam I Kaushish

Public office has a lot to do with perception. Wherein, one’s actions do the talking. Alas last week saw a Constitutional onslaught by Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed Khan who has been perceived as a Governor with a difference, who calls a spade a spade and grabs eyeballs.

In an unusual announcement over social media he asserted “State Government Ministers who lower the dignity of the Governor’s office through public comments can invite action, including withdrawal of pleasure,” referring to Article 164 (1) which states: Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Adding, “I cannot be used as a rubber stamp.”

Primarily this bad tempered exchange was due to an observation made by the State’s Higher Education Minister Bindu on Khan’s refusal to sign the University Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, suggesting he should return it for legislative review instead of withholding assent indefinitely. “Everyone is bound by their Constitutional duties,” he said.

Even as he glossed over Khan’s opposition which was based on curtailing the Governor’s powers as Chancellor of State universities, diluting the universities’ autonomy and shifting their control to the Executive in appointment of vice-chancellors. “I cannot allow a mechanism to be adopted whereby it can be used to appoint unqualified and under-qualified relatives of those in power, relatives of personal staff of Chief Minister and other Ministers, on universities rolls, Khan  said.

Countered Chief Minister Pinarayi, “The Constitution did not vest Governors with dictatorial powers. The Governor should not work as Central Government’s agent. He cannot refuse to honour the Cabinet decisions and hold Bills indefinitely. He is being influenced by BJP and RSS to create hurdles for the Government. He is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which stipulates the Governor should act with the help and advice of the Cabinet, not on an open collision with Government which is anti-Constitutional.”

Questionably, does the Governor have the power to unilaterally dismiss a Minister? No.  Article 164 in its entirety and Supreme Court’s jurisprudence draws clear boundaries. Article 164 (2) avers: The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State.

Moreover, Supreme Court’s rulings have emphasized that under the Cabinet system the Governor exercises powers on the advice of his Council of Ministers except in areas where the Constitution says otherwise.

Furthermore, criticisms never amounts to lowering the dignity of any post. In a democracy, no one is above criticism. Anyone can criticize anybody in a dignified manner. Besides, the ‘pleasure’ of the Governor in a democracy is not the ‘aspiration’ of a King in a monarchy.

But why blame Khan alone? In a milieu dictated by opportunism, all Parties are past master in manipulating tactics reducing the Raj Bhavans as extension of its Party office. Instances of Governors ‘misinterpreting’ the rule book any which way he wants, drawing his own conclusions based more often than not, on delusions so that he and his mai-baaps at the Centre could rule the roost are aplenty, ever ready to destablise the State, if desired by New Delhi.

Predictably, this has tossed out the ‘safety valve’ envisaged by the Constitution makers of who should be appointed Governors, manner of their appointment and their role. During Constituent Assembly debates leaders hoped that eminent individuals, preferably not those directly involved with politics should be appointed to this ‘exalted’ position.

A time when there was a process of consultation between the Union Home Minister and State Chief Minister and his consent taken prior to a Governor’s appointment. Soon this convention was thrown to the winds primarily because the Party that ruled the country wanted to impose Governors, especially in States where its opponents were in power.

Alas, this is par for the course today. Wherein instead of consultation, Chief Ministers are either informed directly or learn through the media. Never mind if it goes against the spirit of the Constitutional intent. In fact, every Government has given short shrift to gubernatorial posts whereby today over 60 per cent of the present lot of Governors are active politicians.

Certainly the Governor’s office is important and sacrosanct. The political executive is often prone to excess. There are numerous examples, besides Khan. Before him Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar as West Bengal Governor had a running battle with Chief Minister Mamata Bannerjee as did Maharashtra’s Koshyari with erstwhile Thackeray’s MVA and Tamil Nadu’s Ravi with Stalin’s DMK.

The only cordial relationship in recent years was between ex-President Kovind then Bihar Governor and Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Their  approach were the "role model", not once did Nitish fight with Kovind in the years they have served Bihar together.  

Clearly, it is important that a Rajyapal refrains from commenting or taking action that could be perceived as either offensive or partisan He can act as a moderating influence on the Cabinet. The power to send back a Bill for reconsideration is an illustration of pressing the pause button. However, implicit in the Constitutional design is the need for a Governor to maintain proper public conduct. A Governor who speaks and acts with restraint has better credibility in restraining the Executive.

Time the gubernatorial office is overhauled. It calls for a Governor who is fair, upright and adheres to Constitutional obligations, values and duties. True, he might have been a Party man but once appointed he must behave according to what behooves his position as Governor and adhere to Constitutional values. He has to ensure there is no instability, likelihood of extensive horse trading and possible exchange of money to destabalise a Government and install a new one.

A Governor’s true function 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 at the Centre and be in tune with his own people.

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. A lot more than those of the President.

The Supreme Court sees the Governor’s role as that of “a Constitutional sentinel and a 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.”

Governors need to remember that democracy means respecting the Constitution and upholding established conventions along-with realizing the essence of Constitutionalism is restraint and not confrontation.

Time to rise above politics and appoint neutral non-political Governors and set healthy and gracious conventions for high Constitutional offices. Remember the State is a Constitutional entity. It is everlasting. For what matters are not men, but institutions. One can tit for an individual but not tat on the State. --- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)