24/08/2006

GOVERNOR IS MORE THAN A SYMBOL

The Federal structure of Indian democracy ensures that States, like the Centre, have a parliamentary form of government headed by the Governor. The post of Governor is thus a vital link between the Centre and the States. Much to our disappointment though, the Constitution is practically silent on the procedure for appointment and removal of Governors. The Governor is to be appointed by the President (Article 155) and will hold office as long as he enjoys the confidence of the President (Article 156), is all that the Constitution states. This in essence means that the Central government is given full powers as far as appointment and removal are concerned; however, over the years a convention has developed whereby the Central government consults the Chief Minister concerned before appointing the Governor.

It must be kept in mind that Governor is not an agent of the Central government though the recent decision of the UPA government to dismiss four Governors forces one to believe the same. The opposition parties have criticised the government for arbitrarily dismissing the Governors without any political debate on the issue. Thus a procedure for removal of Governors must be evolved to ensure that political considerations do not preclude the requirements of impartiality during the process of appointment and removal.

The need of the hour thus is a law which prescribes a procedure for removal of Governors thereby removing the arbitrariness exercised by the Centre. Such a law could be in the form of a comprehensive impeachment procedure similar to that of the President as prescribed in Article 61 of the Constitution. However such a procedure would ensure Parliament's domination over the process of removal of Governors. Since a Governor is the executive head of a State it is imperative that the State be consulted as well before arriving at a decision of removal.

Another proposed procedure envisages making `justiciable' the pleasure of the President when s/he decides to remove the Governor. This means that the removed Governor could petition the courts challenging his removal and argue that Presidential pleasure has been improperly exercised. The Governor, according to this model, can thus only be removed on limited grounds of non-performance of his functions, corruption, bribery, etc. However such a situation would be an embarrassment to the entire federal structure of Indian democracy as also to invite judicial intervention in political matters of appointment and removal. The current legal position on the issue has been aptly summarised by the Rajasthan High Court (AIR 1982 Raj 1) wherein it states that "a Governor enjoys no security of tenure and he enjoys office at the pleasure of the President and Presidential [dis]pleasure is unjusticiable."

The final approach begins with questioning the method of appointment of Governor and presents a solution to both the problem of appointment and removal. If the Governor is a link between the Union and the State then why should the Central government be allowed to unilaterally replace the Governor? This method thus proposes active cooperation between the Centre and States in matters of appointment and removal. Consequently only a consensus candidate can be appointed and removed from the office of Governor. The State under this model exercises a veto over Union's decision.

The post of Governor is not merely of symbolic importance. He plays a crucial role in smooth functioning of federal democracy. Fixed tenure for the Governor ensures continuity in the State administration as, even though Chief Ministers may come and go, the Governor remains for a period of five years. Unfortunately the current position of law permits the Centre to dismiss a Governor without even assigning any reasons.

What is being assailed here is not only the procedure of removal of Governors but also the power of the Central government to unilaterally remove them from office. Such power conferred upon the Centre has been often abused as was seen in 1989 when on the advice of the V.P. Singh government, the President asked all Governors to give in their resignations. Such incidents abound in history and the recent developments further reinforce the domination of the Central government. It is thus imperative that a criterion for appointment of Governors and a procedure for their removal be clearly laid down giving equal powers to the State so as to prevent abuse of power by the Union.

- AJIT SHARMA, ASSOCIATE, JM SHARMA & CO.
This Article was published in The Hindu on July 20, 2004.