CHENNAI: Is it right for a Governor to directly ask the State officials report to him? The question is not just five days old, after the Governor Banwarilal Purohit started having direct meetings with the government officials. The debates around a Governor’s role is as old as Republic India.
“It seems as if to say that the Governor is the same Governor, a representative of the British monarch and as such, the Chief Minister is subject to him and must carry out his orders,” said Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, the Congress leader from Assam, speaking in the Constituent Assembly Debates way back on July 2, 1949.
Even today, the argument about how a nominated Governor can have powers over a popularly elected Chief Minister remains at the core of the debate. A look at the debates in the assembly on the various Constitutional Articles relating to the nature of Governorship appears like a mirror reflection of today’s social media discussions on Governor Purohit’s recent actions. But the words and arguments had far more depth and forethought.
The assembly was sharply divided on what powers a State Governor must have. There was an unanimous understanding that Governors will be agents of the central government, almost like the Governors appointed during the British Raj. In fact, many members pointed out how the wordings of the Articles relating to State Governors were a verbatim reproduction of the section in the British-era Government of India, 1935 Act.
Incapable leaders
Those who advocated more powers to Governors did not mince words when they called leaders and the people of the States (referred as provinces then), utterly incapable. “I feel that there is a dearth of leadership in the provinces. Competent men are not available and there are all kinds of things going on,” said Brajeshwar Prasad, the congress leader from Bihar. (Does it not almost mirror the recent statements of TN BJP’s leaders on the State government?). He went on to assert the centralisation of power is must and federalism is never going to work for India. “Such a procedure may be undemocratic but such a procedure will be perfectly right in the country interest.”
Article 163 says the Governor must act as per advise of the council of ministers, but “except in so far as he is by or under this constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion.” This exemption placed him on a higher pedestal than the President, who has no option but to accept the decision of the Union cabinet. This discretionary power is what many said could lead to undermining of democratically-elected governments — much before the Indira Gandhi government’s use of Article 356 to dismiss the State government — at least twice in Tamil Nadu itself, based on the reports of Governors.
“I know also, and the House will remember too, that the exercise of his discretion by the Governor of the Province of Sindh led to the dismissal of one of the popular Ministers — Mr. Allah Bux,” argued Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri. “Sir, just as a piece of cow-dung may spoil the whole vessel of milk.”
Collision foreseen
Biswanath Das, who was the Prime Minister of Odisha Province of British India and subsequently became Governor of Uttar Pradesh, even foresaw emergence of many political parties and a situation where a Governor nominated by the Prime Minister is not acceptable to a State ruled by a different party. “In such circumstances, ‘rub’ can never be avoided if the power to give administrative pin-pricks is vested in the Governor,” he said. Referring to the powers being vested in the Governors in the British-enacted Government of Indian Act, 1935, he said that the Governor “had in his hands the nose-strings of the bull so to say. But there is nothing in this Constitution to control the Governor once he is appointed...”
Recently, Governor Banwarilal Poruhit had direct meetings with even district-level officials, making them present details on implementation of various government schemes. There are no clear Constitutional provisions that specifically empower the Governors to seek information directly from the officials. The only provision is in Article 167, which says the Governor can seek any information from the council of ministers and the Chief Ministers. But even this Article drew much opposition in the Constituent Assembly.
HV Kamath was one of the members who perhaps put forth the strongest arguments against making it an obligation for the Chief Minister to submit all information called by the Governor. “This is sort of putting the cart before the horse. I think with nominated Governors in the States, it should be left to the Chief Minister or Premier of the State to decide which matter he would like to put before the Governor and which not.” But PS Deshmukh countered that “ordinary matters which are of a routine nature, I am sure, no Governor in his wisdom would like to question.”
“What is the guarantee?” asked Kamath, to which Deshmukh replied: “The guarantee is the Governor’s wisdom and the wisdom of the authority (the Prime Minister) that will appoint the Governor.”
Babasaheb's word
The final word on the debate was Dr BR Ambedkar’s, the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee. His central argument was that the Governors will not have powers to overrule the decisions of the council of ministers. “The first thing I would like the House to bear in mind is this. The Governor under the Constitution has no functions which he can discharge by himself: no functions at all…. Even under this article, the Governor is bound to accept the advice of the Ministry.
Therefore the criticism that has been made that this article somehow enables the Governor to interfere or to upset the decision of the Cabinet is entirely beside the point, and completely mistaken.” Kamath interrupted, asking, “Won’t he be able to delay or obstruct......?” Ambedkar said, “My friend will not interrupt. At the end, he may ask any question and if I am in a position to answer, I shall answer.”
Ambedkar elaborated that while Governors will have no “functions”, they will surely have “duties to perform.”
The two duties of the Governors that Ambedkar described are: “One is, that he has to retain the Ministry in office. Because the Ministry is to hold office during his pleasure, he has to see whether and when he should exercise his pleasure against the Ministry. The second duty which the Governor has, and must have, is to advise the Ministry, to warn the Ministry, to suggest to the Ministry an alternative and to ask for a reconsideration.”
When Kamath again raised to ask a few questions, Rajendra Prasad, who was chairing the assembly, declared that the discussions are over and all questions are answered. “Dr Ambedkar said that I could put the questions at the end of his speech.” Kamath’s request to raise his questions went unheeded. The Article was finally passed without the amendments sought by members who want to restrict the powers of the Governors. But perhaps the questions Kamath intended to raise still lingers around.