Make governor's post autonomous

Central governments have openly misused Article 356 to topple state governments run by rival parties.

The latest turn of events in Uttarakhand appears to be a repetition of the crisis that preceded it in Arunachal Pradesh. The additional feature here is that the required floor test in the state Assembly House to prove the majority of the government is being delayed due to the very floor having been taken away by the opposition.

The haste with which the BJP-led Central government invoked Article 356 of the Constitution against the Congress-led Harish Rawat government just a day prior to the scheduled trial of strength in the Assembly deserves particular attention. This is again a potential case of blatant violation of the Supreme Court judgement in the famous S R Bommai case which provided that testing of the majority of a government must be held on the floor of the Assembly itself.

As the Rawat government in Dehradun was reduced to a minority due to 9 of its legislators voting alongside the BJP members during the passage of Appropriation Bill on March 18 and the resultant political crisis provided a chance to the latter to extract maximum mileage of the fluid situation that emerged in the Assembly.

As expected, allegations and counter allegations of horse-trading were levelled by both parties thereby deepening the crisis and prompting the Union government to turn the crisis in its favour by recommending the imposition of President’s rule on the state.

But soon after, the issue was brought before the state High Court by the Rawat government and the former ordered for a majority test on the floor of the House, including the casting of votes by the 9 disqualified Congress rebels, to be held on March 31. However, both the Congress and the BJP approached the HC for clarification of its single bench order.

While the Rawat government sought clarity on the voting rights of the disqualified MLAs, the BJP-ruled Union government questioned the very floor test asking how the House, under suspended animation, could function after the imposition of the President’s rule.

The Constitution, it argued, provides that all the functions of the state legislature could only be discharged by or under the authority of Parliament. Unfortunately, a division bench of the High Court decided to postpone the floor test till April 6 and again afterwards till April 18. Thus, the final resolution to this crisis appears elusive.

Obviously, in such crises, the role of governors in the removal of state governments becomes very meaningful and decisive, for in the decades after independence, no other higher constitutional authority has been as misused by the Union government for sake of its partisan political ends as that of the governor.

Although it lost its Uttarakhand government, the Congress had been a prominent accused in invoking Article 356 of the Constitution and toppling maximum number of state governments run by non-Congress parties on the pretext of failure of the constitutional machinery in the state. The Congress made use of its prolonged stay in power at the Centre in dethroning elected state governments.

Toppling governments

Now, the BJP has done the same. In fact, all previous Central governments have openly misused this article against state governments run by parties opposed to it only to protect and preserve their narrow and selfish political interests.

Obviously, a question naturally arises about the relevance of this high constitutional authority in the governance of states. It is in this context that several governors like S S Ray, Nadini Satpathy, Homi J Teliarkhan, Jagmohan, Moti Lal Vohra, Ram Lal, Buta Singh, Sibte Razi etc had put this office through shame giving rise to grave disputes.

And perhaps, these incidents of blatant violations by governors led to the passing of the Supreme Court judgement in the S R Bommai case. In this context, the famous Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations pertaining to Centre-state relations had also favoured the rarest use of Article 356 by the Union government in a state where such crisis had emerged.

So, what is the way out of such recurring situations where a prolonged political crisis may snowball into an unprecedented constitutional crisis? Should this high office be abolished altogether or be reformed to make it independent of the Central government?

Despite the Bommai case judgement and the Sarkaria Commission recommendations being in force, the BJP-led Narendra Modi government could not prevent itself from toppling the Rawat government.

Therefore, an effective mechanism needs to be evolved by suitably amending the Constitution to safeguard the gubernatorial authority to make it reasonably independent of the Union government’s partisan political interests so that it may discharge its constitutional duties in a free, fair and impartial manner and in accordance with the very spirit of the Constitution. This must be particularly ensured in such political crises where the removal of a duly elected state government is to be decided by the governor. 

(The writer is Associate Professor of Political Science, MDPG College, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh)