The office of governor is considered to be purely ceremonial and inconsequential. A cushy after-retirement posting for an obedient and accommodating civil servant. Or a kick upstairs for a member of the ruling party whose increasing influence makes top brass nervous.
Or even an unexpected offering for a retiring high functionary of the judiciary. But one thing is common! Whomsoever it may be, a strong loyalty to the ruling party is expected.
Normal activities associated with governorship are the cutting of ribbons, being chief guests at functions where more influential personages are unavailable, receiving visiting dignitaries, hoisting national flag and hosting grand receptions on national days.
But, every once in a while, the governor is called upon to discharge important Constitutional functions and resolve tricky issues in sticky situations. And this is where the mettle of the person occupying the office is displayed.
In recent times, the test of the governor’s acumen has increased. Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu and most recently Goa are the states which over past several months required statesmanlike behaviour from the governor, with their decisions often being subjected to judicial scrutiny, intense media comment and public debate.
These situations were testimony to the importance of the governor’s office and as to why the framers of the Constitution saw fit to accord such importance to this office—contrary to public perception, the governor performs a vital function in our Constitutional scenario.
That he is very rarely called upon to discharge these is irrelevant! After all, the role of a pilot in an aircraft on auto-pilot appears simple. Problems arise and his/her expertise is demanded in turbulence. So too with the governor!
The Constitution vests a huge discretionary power on the governor at the time of political uncertainty. There will, therefore, always be differing opinions on the manner of the exercise of such discretion. But if one sees the primary role of the governor as ensuring political stability in the state with its governance in accordance with the Constitution, evaluating his action in such situations becomes simpler.
The litmus paper test is whether he acted bona fide and impartially in ensuring that Constitutional norms are upheld and the most legitimate and practical solution to any political crisis is found. His discretion even extends to arriving at a conclusion that stability is impossible and the legislature be dissolved and people choose a new government.
The guidelines for exercise of such discretion? Good faith, unbiased conduct and a Constitutionally sound and practical approach. No wonder the differing opinions on the correctness of his decisions! Even the outcome of any judicial challenge to such decision is uncertain—legal pundits giving contrary opinions on the outcome of such proceedings. Even the judges on the bench deciding the legality of the governor’s decision often differ.
The Tamil Nadu governor was severely indicted for his inaction till future events proved his indecision was wise if not right. The Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand governors were faulted for their actions with the court overruling them.
Most recently, the Goa governor’s decision met with the approval of the apex court. In all these cases, the fundamental question was whether the governor acted fairly without arbitrariness or breaching any Constitutional mandate.
The rest is left to his wisdom and discretion. A good reason why courts are loath to interfere with gubernatorial decisions!
With a rise in coalition governments and inability of any single party to get a majority, role of a governor becomes vital in the foundation of a stable government. With unrest and shifting loyalties intra or inter party, his/her role in ensuring the continuation of such stability is challenging.
To deal with large scale unrests, protests and even violence with the government of a state being unable to control the situation, his/her role becomes critical in ensuring there is no breakdown in the Constitutional machinery.
If this then be the importance of the office of governor, should their appointment not be based on merit, strength of character and a proven track record? Is not treating of a governorship as a political handout an anathema to our Constitution and the intention of its framers?
When the very office of a governor and qualities expected of him are based on impartiality, should the ruling party be permitted to handpick those they feel would be most loyal to them? When the government felt that an impartial and independent body be created to select members of the judiciary, ought not the same government moot such an independent body for the selection of a governor? Or is that uncomfortably hitting too close home?aryama_sundaram@hotmail.com