The verdict of the Supreme Court constitutional bench last Friday settles some, but not all, of the issues concerning the post of governor. The court said a governor cannot be dismissed on grounds of not agreeing with the central government over ideology and other political issues. A governor should be allowed to complete his term and he or she can be removed only on proven grounds of misdemeanour. Courts also have the right to review the decision on the basis of a complaint. The present case arose as a result of a complaint made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members on the removal of governors in 2004.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

The governor’s post has proven to be a vexatious one, especially in the context of Centre-state relations. It is basically a vestige of the 1935 India Act with its diarchy principle where the central government controlled the provinces through the governor. It was considered necessary by the British government not to let popular government have total control. In that system, many of the subjects were kept out of the purview of elected provincial governments and the governor could veto their decision as well.

The governor’s post was unpopular then in the eyes of nationalists. After Independence, it remained unpopular as well. This became accentuated when different parties were in power at the Centre and states. In the uneasy equations that emerged, the governor was seen as an agent of an unfriendly central government.

Various parties at the Centre have used the office of governor in a shabby manner. It turned out to be a sinecure for politically superannuated individuals and when the need arose the governor had to do the act at the behest of the party in power at the Centre. What the Supreme Court verdict does is restore dignity to the office, and underlines its constitutional importance. Parties in power at the Centre cannot boot out governors just because they belong to a different party and subscribe to a different ideology.

This leaves out the important question of appointment of governors. The current mode of appointment is rather unsatisfactory. A more democratic option would be the one specified in the Jammu and Kashmir constitution, where the governor is elected by the state legislature. This deserves consideration on the part of constitutional experts and politicians.