By P. K. Balachandran/Sunday Observer
Colombo, February 25: Tamil Nadu Governor R.N Ravi walking out of the State Assembly in protest against the speech written by the State Governments.Tamil Nadu Governor R.N Ravi walking out of the State Assembly in protest against the speech written by the State Governments.
Politics being fiercely competitive, India’s Central Governments have a tendency to use the Governors they appoint to bring State Governments ruled by Opposition parties under their tutelage.
The Constitution of India describes the country as a Union of States. But in effect it is a semi-federal State, with a strong Centre. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution deliberately gave a lot of powers to the Centre because, at the time, secessionist tendencies were all too apparent.
The Muslim-majority areas had already hived off to form Pakistan. The 500-odd semi-autonomous Princely States were still to be integrated with the rest of India. There were also calls for secession in Tamil Nadu (TN) and among the tribals of North East India.
As per the Constitution, State Governments are to be run by elected Legislative Assemblies (LAs) with a Cabinet of Ministers. And Governors, appointed by the Central Government, are only meant to see that the State Governments do not violate the Constitution per se.
But soon enough, the Governors kept acquiring more and more power using the vagueness of the self-same Constitutional provisions. On the one hand, the Governors are required to act only on the advice of the Cabinet of Ministers but on the other, they have the right to offer suggestions, warn and also recommend the take over of the State by the Centre in case in their view there is a constitutional breakdown or “otherwise”. The inclusion of “otherwise” brings politics into play in various forms.
It soon became apparent that the Governors were interfering at the behest of the Central Government, usually when Governments in the Centre and the States were in the hands of antagonistic parties.
The latter provision began to be misused a few years after Independence when the Congress Government at the Centre headed by Premier Jawaharlal Nehru, dismissed an elected Communist Government in Kerala following an agitation over the takeover of private schools. When Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, several State Governments were dismissed on one ground or the other using Article 356 of the Constitution.
In a tit-for-tat, non-Congress Governments at the Centre sacked Congress Governments on the flimsy excuse that the latter had lost the confidence of the people.
Article 356 was used 63 times between 1971 and 1990. After the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai case ruled that States could go to Court to challenge a dismissal, the use of Article 356 came down to 27 between 1991 and 2010. The ruling further said that the two Houses of Parliament would have to ratify a dismissal making it more difficult.
However, Central Governments in New Delhi did not give up their bid to over-rule the States and bring them in line with their policies. They started using the office of Governor to stymie the working of Governments run by Opposition parties.
Haven of Peace
In Tamil Nadu, on January 9, 2023, Governor R.N. Ravi refused to read parts of his speech written by the DMK Government which he should as per practice, because he objected to the glorification of the “Dravidian Model of Governance”. There is no such model, Ravi contended.
He also skipped a sentence which said: “Tamil Nadu continues to be a haven of peace and is attracting numerous foreign investments and is becoming a forerunner in all sectors”.
On February 12 this year, Ravi refused to read the entire speech on “moral and factual” grounds. A press release from the Governor said that he had returned the file containing the State Government’s draft of his speech advising it to show due respect to the Indian national anthem and play it both at the beginning and the end of his address. But in Tamil Nadu, the tradition has been to play the “Tamil Thai Vaazhthu” (In praise of Mother Tamil) at the beginning, and the National Anthem at the end of State events. According to Ravi, however, there should be no place for anything other than the National Anthem at State events. But for the Tamils, “Tamil Thaai Vazhthu” is their State anthem.
Ravi further said that the Governor’s address “should not peddle misleading statements and venting blatantly partisan political views.” He told the Assembly: “This address has numerous passages with which I convincingly disagree on factual and moral grounds. Me lending my voice to them could constitute a constitutional travesty.”
But analysts say that Ravi cannot be ignorant of the Constitutional norm that the Governor’s opening address to a State Assembly session is nothing but the statement of the State government and that it is his duty to read it. He is supposed to act only on the aid and advice of the elected Government. He cannot dictate policy.
In July 2023, Ravi sent out a communication to the Chief Minister, M.K. Stalin, that he had dismissed V. Senthilbalaji, a State Minister without Portfolio, who was in judicial custody in a money laundering case. But Ravi had no Constitutional right to dismiss a State Minister. The Governor has no discretion in the matter of appointing and removing Ministers, which is the sole prerogative of the Chief Minister of a given State. Ravi withdrew the dismissal order subsequently on the advice of New Delhi.
Ravi had also withheld assent to ten Bills that had been passed and “re-passed” by the Legislative Assembly. But this was against the law as the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud pointed out when the matter came before him. “Once they have been re-passed, these Bills are put on the same footing as Money Bills. The Governor cannot reject them,” Chandrachud said.
In the last few years, the Governors of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra and West Bengal have played their roles in such a way as to make them highly controversial, wrote Rakhahari Chatterji, a former advisor to the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Kolkata.
Dispute Settlement
The Governor of Maharashtra had interfered to settle a dispute between political parties to please the Central Government in New Delhi. Opposing this, the Chief Justice of India said the Governor cannot enter the political arena and play a role either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes.
Most recently, the Governor of West Bengal, which is ruled by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) declared that he wants to be a “Ground Zero Governor.” He visited the violence-torn Sandeshkhali area in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas district. He called for a comprehensive report from the State Government on the violence, and held discussions with the top brass of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).
But law and order is a State subject as per the Constitution. Besides, the Governor cannot arrogate to himself the task of restoring law and order.
Sandeshkhali made headlines when the Central investigating agency, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers were attacked by a mob when they raided premises of the TMC leader Shahjahan Sheikh in connection with an alleged rations distribution scam.
The Kerala Governor Arif Mohamad Khan got into a scrap with the Communist Government in the State over the running of the universities in the State. The relationship between the Governor and the State Chief Minister has virtually broken down in Kerala, with the Governor saying that the State’s policies are bad and the Chief Minister claiming that he is answerable only to the electorate.
Threat to Democracy
The Administrative Reforms Commission of 1968, the Rajamannar Committee of 1969, and the Sarkaria Commission of 1988 had all said that the image of the Governor as an agent of the Centre to bring State Governments to toe the Centre’s line had harmed the Federal structure and destroyed democracy.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Constitution drafting committee had said: “The Governor’s discretionary power is not a general clause giving the Governor power to disregard the advice of his ministers.” Dr. Ambedkar had made it clear that the Governor has no functions which he or she can discharge by himself. At best, he can only advise the Ministry, warn the Ministry, and suggest to the Ministry an alternative and ask for reconsideration.
So far, none of the recommendations of the Commissions mentioned above have been implemented by any Government at the Centre in New Delhi. Some have suggested that one way out is to make the Centre take the advice of the elected Governments before appointing a person as Governor. But politics will probably prevent this suggestion from being implemented.
END
