The institution of the governor is again creating waves after the relative calmness that followed the Supreme Court’s landmark judgement in the S R Bommai case. That judgement clipped the wings of governors, some of whom had frequently dismissed state governments and recommended the President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution. The accusation of governors acting as political instruments of the central government is not new. The large-scale dismissals of state governments by the Janata Party in 1977 and by the Congress in 1980 were the heights of the misuse of Article 356. Things improved a bit when the Bommai judgement in 1994 made it difficult for the party ruling at the Centre to dismiss state governments—it made ratification by the two houses of parliament mandatory, and the dismissal open to judicial review. The Rabri Devi government in Bihar had to be reinstated by the Vajpayee government due to the lack of support for its dismissal in the Rajya Sabha.
The use of Article 356 has come down, but the governor’s role continues to be seen as controversial. The state governments of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal—run by parties opposed to the one ruling at the Centre—are at loggerheads with their governors. Four of them have approached the Supreme Court seeking redress. The most common complaint is that governors are refusing to clear bills passed by the legislative assembly. Chhattisgarh’s Congress government has been complaining about the governor’s refusal to give assent to a bill seeking higher reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs. West Bengal is unhappy with its governor over the appointment of university vice-chancellors, among other issues. One of the problems in Punjab is peculiar—the governor has refused to allow the government to convene the state assembly. In Tamil Nadu, after the state government complained that the governor had delayed assent on as many as 12 bills, the governor referred two of those to the president. Other complaints include delays in the sanction of grants, the release of prisoners and appointments.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed disapproval over such conduct by governors. The court’s judgement on the Punjab case, uploaded Thursday, clarified that governors cannot veto bills. The framers of the Constitution had perhaps not foreseen how the governor’s role would evolve. The time has come to strengthen the Constitution and bring more clarity to the roles and responsibilities of the governor.