JOIN USDo we need governors?
Governors have been making news in the past few months. Be it Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra, or Tamil Nadu, they have been playing an active, albeit unusual, role in the politics of these states, prompting the Supreme Court to question governors’ powers. In a way, it has revived the debate
on the role of the governor in
Indian democracy.
The governor of a state is appointed by the President under Article 153 of the Constitution and holds office at the pleasure of the President. The person appointed to the office is supposed to be independent and impartial in the discharge of his duties, irrespective of his political affiliations.
Apart from politicians, there has been a practice of appointing retired civil servants as governors. In the past, by and large, they used to be persons of standing who lent dignity to the office. Those who served in Karnataka include eminent names like V V Giri and G S Pathak and distinguished ICS officers like Dharma Vira and Govind Narain. I recall that during Dharma Vira’s time, there was a spell of the president’s rule, which witnessed a sudden transformation in the workings of the government. Known as a strict disciplinarian, Dharma Vira enforced punctuality in government offices, and to everyone’s surprise, officials in Vidhana Soudha started coming on time.
Unfortunately, there has been a qualitative change in the appointment of governors in the last two decades, serving political interests more than the interests of the state. The governor seems to function more as a party politician than an independent authority exercising his own judgement. Some of the recent happenings bear testimony to the politicisation of the governor’s office. In one state, the governor skips reading parts of the governor’s address to the state legislature, which outlines the state’s policies and is approved by the state Cabinet. In another, the governor does not summon the Assembly as recommended by the Cabinet, and in a third, he calls for a trust vote when there are no sufficient grounds to do so, prompting the Supreme Court to observe that governors were becoming part of politics to topple elected governments.
It is time to raise the question of what role the governor plays in Indian politics and whether the office serves any useful purpose. Let us look at the functions performed by the governor. Briefly, they may be summed up as follows:
As head of state, all executive actions are taken in the governor’s name. The chief minister and other ministers are appointed by him, as are members of the state election commission, state finance commission, public service commission, and vice chancellors of state universities.
Summons, prorogues, and dissolves state legislatures and addresses the first legislature session at the beginning of every year.
Gives assent to bills passed by the legislature and can withhold, return, or reserve a bill for the President’s consideration.
Promulgates ordinances when the legislature is not in session.
Appoints district judges and exercises the power of pardon.
Plays a key role in government formation when no party secures a majority after a general election or a party loses its majority, leading to political instability.
Runs the state administration during the President’s rule by exercising the powers of the chief minister and council of ministers.
The obvious question that comes up is who can perform these functions in the absence of a governor. First, it must be pointed out that the real executive power vests in the government, and orders are issued in the governor’s name as a constitutional requirement. Appointment orders can therefore be issued in the name of the chief minister or the chief secretary, as necessary, except in the case of the appointment of the chief minister and the council of ministers, which can be done in the name of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or Chairman of the Legislative Council. Summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the legislature can be done by the Speaker of the Assembly or the Chairman of the Council. As far as giving assent to bills is concerned, once a bill is passed in the legislature, it may be considered final. Although the governor may have the power to return the bill for reconsideration, he has no power to reject any bill. At best, he can delay it. Any bill requiring the President’s assent can be sent to him by the Secretary of the Legislature. The promulgation of Ordinances can be done by the Speaker.
One ticklish issue pertains to dealing with a situation where no party gets a majority or when a ruling party loses its majority. The leader of the coalition group that claims to have a majority or a party that claims it will prove its majority should be allowed to do so on the floor of the Assembly by the Speaker. The democratic process must be allowed to run its course until the issue is sorted out. If things are not sorted out within a time frame, the Centre can intervene and impose the President’s rule.
These are my suggestions, and there can be alternative ways of dealing with situations in the absence of the governor’s office. The matter needs to be debated objectively without the biases of a ruling or an opposition party. It would require constitutional amendments, and there will be resistance to any such major decision to be taken. My proposition is that we can do away with the governor’s office with no harm to the politics or administration of the state. On the other hand, it will save the State considerable expenditure. The governor’s establishment and maintenance of Raj Bhavan, reminding us of colonial rule, costs anywhere between Rs 3 and Rs 5 crore a year, and with about 38 Raj Bhavans in the country, the total amount saved will be about Rs 150 crore a year. More importantly, we will be removing a thorn in the flesh of Centre-state relations and avoiding friction between the governor and the chief minister or his Cabinet. The grand Raj Bhavans with their large gardens and open spaces can be converted into museums and art galleries, reflecting the cultural heritage of the states.
Let me conclude with what Dr Ambedkar said in very clear terms: “The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself; no functions at all.” Then why have such a ceremonial office in a democracy at the expense of the taxpayer?
(The writer is former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)