According to the Constitution, it is the duty of the Governor to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and to devote himself to the service and well-being of the people of the state to the best of his abilities.
There is no denying the fact that the Governor is a constitutional head of a state. So, he has two options only. He may call the Chief Minister or any of his Ministers for discussion on any matter which he considers to be serious. The second option is that he may send his report to the Central Government. One eminent Indian Constitutional Expert has very rightly commented that the Governor cannot have any personal view. He has to work within the constitutional limitations. He has no scope for possessing any opinion different from that of the state government.
In Shamsher Singh Vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the President and the Governors are only constitutional heads and they exercise their power and functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not personally. Wherever the constitution requires the ‘satisfaction’ of the President or the Governor, the ‘satisfaction’ is not the personal satisfaction of the President or the Governor but it is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers.
The pro-imperialist and blind anti-Communist Governor of West Bengal is a man of man of many parts and personality with learning, passion, emotion and compassion. But bad people say that all these qualities are prejudiced and one eyed. He is not so innocent and impartial as he pretends to look. Besides, he is also in possession of an unusual ‘conscience’. It wakes up all on a sudden only when Mamata Banerjee and her rainbow alliance of Maoist-TMC-Congress-SUCI-Few Perverted Intellectuals-Media-NGOs-Human Rights Originations desires and demands in times of need to push their political agenda of overthrowing the Left Front Government in West Bengal. Many people are of the firm opinion that he is a “Friend, Philosopher and Guide” of this alliance and the Governor House has become a centre for hatching political conspiracy against the Left Front Government.
The frequent politically motivated statements issued by him for landing the Left Front Government in constitutional crisis has earned him the unequivocal praise of Mamata Banerjee and her rainbow alliance. To tell the truth, instead of discharging impartially and honestly his duties as a constitutional head, he himself has been in the arena trying to embarrass, heckle and humiliate the Left Front Government and tarnish its image in the estimation of the people throughout the country. He has been instrumental in sabotaging the industrial resurgence of the state. His modus operandi for creating constitutional crisis in the state with the help of the opposition has, therefore, considerably and definitely lowered and damaged the dignity, honour, prestige and status of this august office. It, therefore, not only goes against the spirit of the Constitution but also aimed at subverting it.
The Governors in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, Goa, Jharkhand and West Bengal have acted in gross violation of the Constitution and the law in recent times. People felt outraged by the decisions of the Governors favouring a particular party or coalition. Fortunately the damage caused to the Constitution and to democratic norms was rectified to some extent through the intervention of the Supreme Court, but the damage to the institution of Governors has proved to be irreparable.
It is largely the conduct of a few such Governors that has led to the devaluation of the institution. Some political parties in power both at the Centre and in the States have also contributed to this process of erosion of the prestige and usefulness of the office of governor by having their "own men" in the Raj Bhavans.
Many suggestions have been made by constitutional experts and commissions in order to enable the governors to discharge the duties assigned to them by the Constitution efficiently and satisfactorily. If further erosion of this important institution is to be averted, appropriate corrective measures have to be taken without delay.
Two such measures can be identified as the most important and urgent.
The first is to have a proper system for the selection of persons to be appointed as Governors. An ideal method of selecting suitable persons for governorship is to form a panel of persons in advance from which alone appointments are to be made as and when vacancies arise. Such a panel should be prepared by a high level committee with the Vice-President as Chairman and the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, Home Minister and leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses as members. This will help a great deal to increase the credibility of the persons appointed to this high office.
The second important requirement in ensuring impartiality and dignity for the institution of governors is to give them adequate security of tenure. Today the Governor’s post is the least secured among the constitutional posts in the country. Article 156(1) of the Constitution states that a Governor holds his office during the pleasure of the President which in practice means the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, Article 156(1) has been so much misused by the Prime Ministers in the past that the Governor’s position has become in some respects worse than that of an ordinary employee of the Central Government. An employee of the Central Government cannot be removed or dismissed from office without due process, but in the case of Governors, removal can be enforced through "command resignations" as had happened in several cases in the past.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar had assured the Constituent Assembly that there was no need for any special provision in the Constitution for the removal of Governors as such removal will be only in exceptional cases of gross misconduct or violation of the Constitution. His stand, no doubt, reflected the high standards of constitutional propriety and idealism prevalent at the time of the framing of the Constitution. But experience has shown that in the absence of definite provisions in the Constitution for removal of Governors, this power can be misused at the whims and fancies of those in power. A provision, therefore, has to be made in the Constitution laying down the reasons for removal of a Governor and the procedure to be followed for removing him.
If the above two suggestions are adopted as part of the constitutional and administrative reforms promised by the Government it will help a great deal in getting suitable and deserving persons for the post of Governor and curbing the growing tendency among politicians to treat the Governors as just another group among the "employees" of the parties in power.
There is no denying the fact that the Governor is a constitutional head of a state. So, he has two options only. He may call the Chief Minister or any of his Ministers for discussion on any matter which he considers to be serious. The second option is that he may send his report to the Central Government. One eminent Indian Constitutional Expert has very rightly commented that the Governor cannot have any personal view. He has to work within the constitutional limitations. He has no scope for possessing any opinion different from that of the state government.
In Shamsher Singh Vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the President and the Governors are only constitutional heads and they exercise their power and functions with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not personally. Wherever the constitution requires the ‘satisfaction’ of the President or the Governor, the ‘satisfaction’ is not the personal satisfaction of the President or the Governor but it is the satisfaction of the Council of Ministers.
The pro-imperialist and blind anti-Communist Governor of West Bengal is a man of man of many parts and personality with learning, passion, emotion and compassion. But bad people say that all these qualities are prejudiced and one eyed. He is not so innocent and impartial as he pretends to look. Besides, he is also in possession of an unusual ‘conscience’. It wakes up all on a sudden only when Mamata Banerjee and her rainbow alliance of Maoist-TMC-Congress-SUCI-Few Perverted Intellectuals-Media-NGOs-Human Rights Originations desires and demands in times of need to push their political agenda of overthrowing the Left Front Government in West Bengal. Many people are of the firm opinion that he is a “Friend, Philosopher and Guide” of this alliance and the Governor House has become a centre for hatching political conspiracy against the Left Front Government.
The frequent politically motivated statements issued by him for landing the Left Front Government in constitutional crisis has earned him the unequivocal praise of Mamata Banerjee and her rainbow alliance. To tell the truth, instead of discharging impartially and honestly his duties as a constitutional head, he himself has been in the arena trying to embarrass, heckle and humiliate the Left Front Government and tarnish its image in the estimation of the people throughout the country. He has been instrumental in sabotaging the industrial resurgence of the state. His modus operandi for creating constitutional crisis in the state with the help of the opposition has, therefore, considerably and definitely lowered and damaged the dignity, honour, prestige and status of this august office. It, therefore, not only goes against the spirit of the Constitution but also aimed at subverting it.
The Governors in Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Bihar, Goa, Jharkhand and West Bengal have acted in gross violation of the Constitution and the law in recent times. People felt outraged by the decisions of the Governors favouring a particular party or coalition. Fortunately the damage caused to the Constitution and to democratic norms was rectified to some extent through the intervention of the Supreme Court, but the damage to the institution of Governors has proved to be irreparable.
It is largely the conduct of a few such Governors that has led to the devaluation of the institution. Some political parties in power both at the Centre and in the States have also contributed to this process of erosion of the prestige and usefulness of the office of governor by having their "own men" in the Raj Bhavans.
Many suggestions have been made by constitutional experts and commissions in order to enable the governors to discharge the duties assigned to them by the Constitution efficiently and satisfactorily. If further erosion of this important institution is to be averted, appropriate corrective measures have to be taken without delay.
Two such measures can be identified as the most important and urgent.
The first is to have a proper system for the selection of persons to be appointed as Governors. An ideal method of selecting suitable persons for governorship is to form a panel of persons in advance from which alone appointments are to be made as and when vacancies arise. Such a panel should be prepared by a high level committee with the Vice-President as Chairman and the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India, Home Minister and leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses as members. This will help a great deal to increase the credibility of the persons appointed to this high office.
The second important requirement in ensuring impartiality and dignity for the institution of governors is to give them adequate security of tenure. Today the Governor’s post is the least secured among the constitutional posts in the country. Article 156(1) of the Constitution states that a Governor holds his office during the pleasure of the President which in practice means the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, Article 156(1) has been so much misused by the Prime Ministers in the past that the Governor’s position has become in some respects worse than that of an ordinary employee of the Central Government. An employee of the Central Government cannot be removed or dismissed from office without due process, but in the case of Governors, removal can be enforced through "command resignations" as had happened in several cases in the past.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar had assured the Constituent Assembly that there was no need for any special provision in the Constitution for the removal of Governors as such removal will be only in exceptional cases of gross misconduct or violation of the Constitution. His stand, no doubt, reflected the high standards of constitutional propriety and idealism prevalent at the time of the framing of the Constitution. But experience has shown that in the absence of definite provisions in the Constitution for removal of Governors, this power can be misused at the whims and fancies of those in power. A provision, therefore, has to be made in the Constitution laying down the reasons for removal of a Governor and the procedure to be followed for removing him.
If the above two suggestions are adopted as part of the constitutional and administrative reforms promised by the Government it will help a great deal in getting suitable and deserving persons for the post of Governor and curbing the growing tendency among politicians to treat the Governors as just another group among the "employees" of the parties in power.
No comments:
Post a Comment