India - Articles

History is being repeated now though the axe has fallen only on four governors so far. The assumption that the Centre which is the appointment authority has the right to dismiss a governor without giving him the reasons for it or following any legal procedure ignores the basic right of every citizen in our democracy to be heard before he is punished. The governor is a constitutional functionary entrusted with the solemn responsibility to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law." He takes the same oath on the assumption of his office as that taken by the President, with the difference that the governor’s oath refers to the well-being of the people of the state of which he is the governor while the President’s oath refers to the well-being of the people of the whole country. His is an independent constitutional office which is not subject to the control of the government of India.

Some highly fallacious theories and doctrines have been propounded by certain political parties and leaders about the right of the Central government to summarily dismiss the governors of the states. But what has astonished most people is that Shivraj Patil should have come out with a strange post-facto explanation which is as wrong as the Mufti doctrine of 1990. When the V.P. Singh government demanded resignation of all governors through letters addressed to them by President R. Venkataraman in January 1990, the theory put forward by the then home minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed was that with the change of government at the Centre there should also be a change of governors in the states. The theory thus was that the governor should be the Centre’s "own man" irrespective of the fact that the Constitution expected him to be a totally non-partisan and impartial functionary. Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, however, refused to change the governors appointed by the previous government in spite of strong pressures on him to follow the example of the V.P. Singh government. Imagine what would have happened to governance in this country if the Mufti doctrine of "our men" had been followed by Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral or Chandra Shekhar whose tenure as Prime Ministers was only a few months each.

Patil has reportedly said: "We have taken action in states where the incumbents had different ideologies." If ideological incompatibility is a valid reason for dismissal of a governor, what about the Centre’s ideological incompatibility with the chief ministers and ministers in several states of India today? A reading of Article 156 as a whole along with the text of the discussions in the Constituent Assembly on the appointment of governors will show that the main objective of this Article was to indicate a period of five years as the tenure for a governor and not to expose him to the uncertainty of an arbitrary dismissal. It is a constitutional provision for determination of the term of office and does not make the government of India an employer of the governor.

However, the common perception has grown that the governor is just another employee of the Central government. Unfortunately, some governors by their own behaviour have also contributed to this distorted perception. Dr Ambedkar’s reply to such fears was that the governors would be removed only for reasons such as corruption, bribery, violation of the Constitution etc. His stand reflected the high standards of constitutional morality and idealism prevalent at the time of the framing of the Constitution. It has often been suggested that the persons who have been active in party politics should not be appointed as governors. However, this is easier said than done. From the days of Jawaharlal Nehru to the present, politicians have been appointed as governors. To keep out this category of persons from the post of the governor altogether may not be possible or even be desirable; the experience of such persons can prove to be particularly valuable to the post of governor. What is most important is that politicians once appointed as governors should completely disengage themselves from party politics and conduct themselves as impartial heads of states in whom all political parties and non-party citizens will have full confidence.

There can be two safeguards against arbitrary removal of governors:

1. Through an amendment of the Constitution laying down the grounds for the removal of a governor which may include violation of the Constitution, misbehaviour, mental or physical disability etc.

 

2. To place the whole issue of removal of the governors before the Supreme Court for a conclusive judgment taking into account the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the principles of natural justice, the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and other such relevant factors.