Role Of Governor In Center-State Relations
Present circumstances:
- In the ongoing disqualification proceedings before the Supreme Court against Maharashtra MLAs, a five-judge Constitution bench criticised the role and authority of the governor in center-state interactions.
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) stated that a governor “should not enter the political arena,” that they “cannot enter into any area by their conduct will expedite the fall of a government,” and that it would be “very, very serious for our democracy” if this notion was not respected.
What role does the governor have in the legislative process?
- Because the Governor is selected by the President, he or she acts as the vital link between the Union and the state governments (on the suggestion of the federal government).
- Notwithstanding the nonpartisan nature of the job, there has long been tension between the Centre and the states on the governors’ role.
- The ability to grant or withhold assent to a bill passed by the state legislature or to specify the amount of time necessary for a party to demonstrate its majority are just two examples of the specific rights that the Governor has that have historically been used by central governments to repress the political opposition.
- He is in charge of the state’s executive branch and generally adheres to the advice of the council of ministers. The state legislature is the council of ministers’ superior under the parliamentary system.
In some cases, the governor’s position has drawn criticism:
- The urgent issue at hand is the constitutional and procedural authority conferred to a governor. A governor who is meant to be neutral cannot take actions that cause a crisis and lead to the removal of an elected government that has been duly elected.
- Also, the governor is not permitted to intervene in legislative concerns because he is an executive appointment, and if he does, we must specify the circumstances and exclusions that will legitimately allow it.
- Due to a crisis, the governor’s office’s position and authority have recently come under fire in Maharashtra.
- Along with it, there have been several governor-related scandals in India over the past few years, including those in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Concerningly, this problem has led to the labelling of a number of governors as “agent provocateurs of the Centre”.
- The Tamil Nadu governor, R N Ravi, recently had a case. He went too far by excluding crucial phrases from his speech, such as secularism, Periyar, and B. R. Ambedkar.
- He also criticised the Dravidian political model, calling it backward, and advised a group of civic hopefuls to always side with the Central in disagreements between the Centre and the State. He went on to illustrate the impertinence of changing Tamil Nadu’s name itself!
- Ramesh Bais, the former governor of Jharkhand and current governor of Maharashtra, delayed the Election Commission’s opinion in the Hemant Soren office of profit case as well. By doing so, he caused turmoil and instability in the House.
- In fact, he disregarded numerous requests from both Chief Minister Soren and the present UPA administration to release the EC’s ruling, in violation of Article 192(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that he “shall act” in compliance with such an opinion.
The governor should act with impartiality befitting a statesman:
- The governor is expected to avoid becoming involved in political disputes or ideological squabbles because he is an unelected official of the central government. He must act impartially and with statesmanlike restraint, refraining from meddling and being confrontational in legislative matters.
- It is crucial to set restrictions on the governor’s discretionary powers because a politically active and partisan governor would usurp the authority of elected officials.
- People have long questioned how governors should work, so this is nothing new. There have been calls for the office to be abolished and for their discretionary power to be reduced.
- When inviting a candidate to form the government following an election, they frequently play a questionable role. Some governors flourish under a hung mandate because they are willing to play the puppet in the hands of an oppressive Center.
- It is essential to The development of a precise process in the event of a hung mandate will be very beneficial to Indian democracy.
- In the event of a hung legislature, the Justice Sarkaria Commission, which was established in 1983 to investigate the relationship and power dynamics between state and federal governments, had recommended that the governor follow the following method.
- One is a grouping of parties that came together before the elections.
- Two, creating the government will fall to the party that has the most supports, including independents.
- A post-election coalition of parties, with all members serving in the administration, is the third possibility.
- Four, a post-election coalition of political parties when some of the parties form the government while the others, including independents, support it from the outside.
- The recommendations made twenty years prior were reiterated by the Justice Punchhi Committee in 2007, but consecutive administrations have not bothered to take it seriously.
Conclusion:
- History has shown that constitutional morality and principles are too vital to be left to the governors’ discretion.
- Governors must be protected from crossing the Lakshman Rekha by institutional safeguards.
- Both the Sarkaria and Punchhi commissions debated it extensively. To strengthen our democracy and its federal structure, action must be taken.
