Redefine role of Governor

The recent political crisis in Tamil Nadu has once again shifted the spotlight on the relevance of the Governor in the Indian political system. It has triggered a debate in political circles whether Governor Ch Vidyasagar Rao did the right thing in not inviting V Sasikala to form the government, though she was elected by a majority of AIADMK MLAs, especially when she was awaiting a Supreme Court judgment in a case against her.

As she was convicted by the highest court, the Governor’s action was hailed as the right step. But, by any chance, if she had been acquitted, the Governor might have come under attack from all quarters.

Article 155 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to appoint the Governor of a State and Article 156 says he continues to occupy the post till he enjoys the pleasure of the President, which in reality, means the Prime Minister.

Over the past 65 years, no other institution in India has been misused by the ruling party at the Centre for their partisan ends the way the gubernatorial office has been. There have been certain instances in which Governors subverted the people’s mandate, made a mockery of democracy and threw Constitutional propriety to the winds during the last 65 years.

The Governor’s office was misused for the first time in 1952 when the then Madras Governor Sri Prakasa invited C Rajagopalachari after nominating him to the Legislative Council to form the government overlooking the claims of T Prakasam, who enjoyed the majority support. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru shot off an angry letter to Sri Prakasa for subverting democratic norms.

The second time was in 1959 when the CPI government of EMS Namboodiripad in Kerala was dismissed by Governor V V Giri. Although there were reports that President Rajendra Prasad and PM Jawaharlal Nehru did not favour the dismissal, they were persuaded to do so by the then Congress President who argued that a communist government was a threat to the unity and integrity of India.

It was during the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi (1966-77 and again from 1980-84) that the office of the Governor was further devalued. She cultivated the art of toppling non-Congress governments with the help of pliant Governors with effortless ease.

In the general elections to the State Assemblies in 1967, Congress lost elections in eight states and Indira Gandhi did not relish the idea of opposition parties, such as the Communists, the Jan Sangh and the Samyuktha Vidhayak Dal forming governments at the state-level.

In 1967, the then West Bengal Governor Dharma Vira dismissed the United Front Ministry headed by Ajoy Mukherjee without even giving him a chance to prove his majority on the floor of the Assembly and appointed P C Ghose as the new Chief Minster.

Later, in October, 1970, the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh Bezawada Gopala Reddy dismissed the Ministry headed by Choudhary Charan Singh without ascertaining whether he enjoyed the support of the majority MLAs in the House or not.

The only instance of the dismissal of a non-Congress government that boomeranged on the Centre and dented the personal image of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was on August 16, 1984 when Andhra Pradesh Governor Ram Lal Thakur misused his discretionary power in dismissing the TDP government headed by the then Chief Minister NT Rama Rao and appointed his Finance Minister N Bhaskara Rao as the Chief Minister, thus, subverting the people’s mandate.

Ram Lal did not give NTR an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor of the Assembly. This led to nation-wide protests and triggered angry debates in Parliament and Ram Lal had to resign in disgrace for his indefensible action. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had to clarify in the Lok Sabha that the Central government had no role in the murky political drama and the Governor took the decision on his own.

It was left to his successor Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma in ending the political crisis in the State by asking Bhaskar Rao to tender his resignation when he failed to prove his majority within the stipulated period of one month and reinstated N T Rama Rao as Chief Minister on September 16, 1984.

There are several such instances of misuse of Governor’s discretionary powers at the behest of the ruling party at the Centre. As Governors do not have security of tenure earlier, they had to follow the dictates of the Prime Minister blindly as they were worried of ruling their job.

However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment in the BP Singhal versus Union of India (2010) case, said that the power to remove Governors should only be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances for valid and compelling reasons.

This power cannot be exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner. Now, Governors need not worry over their tenure, though they cannot defy the instructions of the President or the Central government, which means the Prime Minister and the ruling party.

It must be remembered that for the faults of a few Governors, the entire system cannot be blamed. The character of the incumbent is more important than what our very prolix Constitution provides for each and every contingency.

They can be expected to play a key role as the results of the state Assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Goa, Manipur and Uttarkhand will be out on Saturday. If there is political uncertainty in these states after the announcement of results, the focus will shift on the Governors. Therefore, Governors are still relevant.

By B Srinivas Narayana Rao