Governors who bring disrepute to the office must be shown the door

The record of the Narendra Modi government has been to brazen out criticism and even reward those governors who go beyond their job description

The Supreme Court judgement in the case of Governor of Tamil Nadu R N Ravi will have an impact beyond the state in defining the role of governors.

The desire of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), like that of the Congress in its heyday, to rule the states as well as the Centre, has revived the debate about the impartiality and constitutional autonomy of the governors.

Ravi’s overreach of his constitutional powers lay in rejecting Bills passed by the legislature, not once but twice after his first rejection. He explained what this meant to a group of civil service aspirants: “It is a decent use of the word ‘reject’. When you say ‘withhold’, the Bill is dead.”

This prompted former law minister P Chidambaram to quip, “Actually when a governor withholds assent for no valid reason, it means ‘parliamentary democracy is dead’.”

The arbitrary exercise of the powers of governors has led to allegations of partisanship and interference in the governance of Opposition-ruled states.

The process of appointment of politically-motivated governors has been criticised for a long time, including by the Sarkaria Commission. It has become more so now with former Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) whole timers, aging partymen put out to grass, and pliant bureaucrats and policemen being appointed governors. It appears that they were hand-picked for their willingness to push the BJP’s ideological agenda, it is hard to see them as neutral arbiters.

Rather, such governors are akin to road-clearing parties making political space for the BJP in states where it has not been able to make any headway.

That Ravi has not as yet either resigned or been dismissed, despite the scathing indictment of the apex court, suggests that he still enjoys the protection of his political patrons.

What except patronage can explain why a superannuated policeman was given a second-lease on life by the Narendra Modi government? He allegedly made a mess of the Naga peace process as the Centre’s chief negotiator, but was nevertheless rewarded with the governorship of Nagaland. Nor did he excel in that job before being rewarded with the governorship of the much bigger state of Tamil Nadu.

It would not come as a surprise if Ravi is further rewarded rather than sent home for his flagrant violation of constitutional norms.

Ravi’s egregious actions undermining the popular will of the people were not limited to withholding assent to 10 Bills using ‘absolute veto’ or ‘pocket veto’ against the decisions of the legislature.

He also dismissed V Senthilbalaji from the Council of Ministers, immediately after the Directorate of Enforcement arrested him for alleged money laundering. However, he was advised by the Union home ministry to reverse this the very same night. He further refused to induct K Ponmudy into the state Cabinet, although the Supreme Court had suspended his conviction in a corruption case. Only when the court openly castigated him for ‘defying’ its order, did he administer the oath of office to him.

But Ravi is not the only governor to act egregiously against popularly elected non-BJP governments. Former Governor of Kerala Arif Mohammad Khan and West Bengal Governor C V Ananda Bose stand out for habitually blocking government decisions.

The BJP has been desperate to make an entry into Kerala politics. Khan’s belligerent personality and willingness to lock horns with the Left Front government led to the stalling of eight Bills, two of them for over two years.

Khan was accused by the Left Front of facilitating saffron control of education in Kerala by nominating those associated with the BJP to the Senate of various universities in his ex-officio capacity as the chancellor. When the Kerala Assembly retaliated by passing a Bill removing the governor as the chancellor, he just sat on it.

The other Bills that Khan is holding back include Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to ensure stronger security for depositors in the wake of the Karuvannur bank scam; a Bill to amend the Kerala Lokayukta legislation to abolish the appellate power of the governor in the case of any judgement passed against the chief minister, and giving it instead, to the Assembly; and the Public Health Bill brought in after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Kerala government had to move the apex court claiming that the governor was trying to “defeat the rights of the people” of the state by indefinitely sitting on crucial Bills.

In West Bengal, ruled by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the BJP thinks it is closer to power than ever before. Jagdeep Dhankhar, as governor, was its spear-arm in the state and has since been amply rewarded for his role. His success must have whetted the ambitions of the current incumbent Bose.

The ruling TMC government has also had to move the Supreme Court against eight Bills blocked by Bose without explanation. These include the West Bengal University Laws (Amendment) Bill and the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill.

Some of the Bills, as in Kerala, seek to remove the governor as the ex-officio chancellor of various universities because of his interference in university appointments. The Supreme Court hearing over the governor’s actions is due on April 21.

In the case of Punjab, the Supreme Court had criticised Governor Banwarilal Purohit for refusing to give assent to four Bills, claiming that the legislative session which passed the Bills was illegal. Whereas Purohit was ordered by the court to decide on the Bills, he sent them to the President instead.

There are similar cases in other non-BJP states. Former governor of Telangana Tamilisai Soundararajan delayed 10 Bills and the current governor of Congress-ruled Karnataka, Thawarchand Gehlot, has been sitting on crucial co-operative society Bills, seeking clarification and when they were provided, ruling them ‘unsatisfactory’.

The Supreme Court judgement on the limits of gubernatorial authority will again bring into focus these attempts at blockading decisions of elected legislatures. The record of the Modi government, however, has been to brazen out criticism and even reward those governors who go beyond their job description.

Although the Modi regime came to power talking of ‘cooperative federalism’, over time its evident preference for unitary over federal governance has become more than evident. Any growth of such a trust deficit between the Centre and the states will threaten India’s political stability.

(Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist. X: @Bharatitis)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.