Recent Conduct of Governors
Context:
- Governors who oppose elected regimes shouldn’t leave room for criticism.
About:
- The fact that two States have petitioned the Supreme Court of India over the actions of their governors highlights the issue of political appointees in Raj Bhavan abusing their power to obstruct or at least postpone the implementation of decisions made by elected regimes.
Important Info:
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu have expressed concerns about the length of time it takes to ratify laws that the legislature has passed.
- Tamil Nadu is also upset that plans to appoint people to State Public Service Commissions, authorise the prosecution of certain former Ministers, and pardon some of the guilty have not been carried out.
- While they are not required to ratify any decision, governors’ practise of stalling bills and decisions—particularly in states that are not controlled by the national government—may be questioned.
- For example, some governors seem opposed to the very notion of changing university laws if they aim to exclude chancellors—who are, by definition, also governors—from the vice-chancellor selection process or create new universities where governors do not hold the position of chancellor.
- The concept of Governors serving as ex-officio vice-chancellors at most universities is merely a custom made possible by their original charters.
- Nonetheless, governors frequently postpone signing legislation that curtails or eliminates their authority because they appear to be operating under the false impression that they have a legal claim to the position.
- A nationwide ban on governors holding the position of chancellor at any university is long overdue, as suggested by the Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Center-State relations.
The errors:
- Regrettably, some governors use the lack of an assent deadline to thwart laws that the legislature has passed.
- It would have seemed that the Telangana government’s petition, which prompted the Supreme Court to remind constitutional authorities that the word “as soon as possible” appears in Article 200 of the Constitution and contains significant “constitutional content,” would have instilled in them a sense of urgency when it came to considering bills.
- The Court intended to say that it would be unconstitutional for governors to hold onto bills indefinitely without making a decision.
- The States should also exercise caution when making decisions and avoid raising issues with the decisions’ viability.
Way Forward:
- One example is the lack of a formal procedure to solicit applications and evaluate the relative merits of candidates prior to designating the chairperson and members of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The more important thing to remember is that the Constitution’s “aid and advice” clause expressly limits the governors’ ability to operate, and they should not abuse their discretionary powers.