Article: Disputes are increasing between the center and the states, it is time for the government to think again on the appointments of governors

Robin David: ‘The role of the Governor has been attacked on the ground that some Governors have failed to display the qualities of impartiality and wisdom expected of them. It has been alleged that the Governors have not acted with the required impartiality in exercising their discretion or in their role as a vital link between the Union and the States. ‘ These lines could easily be part of the recent outbursts by MK Stalin against Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi or Pinarayi Vijayan against Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan. But these words are almost 40 years old. They are in the report of the Rajinder Singh Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to study the balance of power between the states and the central government.

Fresh clash seen in Bengal

Like many other commissions in the past, this commission too did little to heal the many fissures in governor-state relations. The latest confrontation was between West Bengal Governor C V Anand Bose and CM Mamata Banerjee. We have lived with the same rhythm at the heart of our political system for half a century, as if that irregular beat had some acceptable pattern. It does not. In the governorship, we have an institution that has the façade of being apolitical but has been used by successive central governments to spread political chaos at crucial junctures in our post-independence history.

History thrown in the dustbin

All talk of the governor playing the role of friend, philosopher and guide to the council of ministers has long been thrown into the dustbin of history. Governors, especially now, are appointed with the clear intention of steering opposition-led governments in states in the wrong direction. Take the example of Tamilisai Soundararajan. The Sarkaria Commission had recommended that a politician from the ruling party at the Centre should ideally not be appointed governor of a state ruled by the opposition party or a coalition of other parties. But in 2021 the BJP appointed Soundararajan, the chief of its Tamil Nadu unit, as governor of Telangana. She spent most of her tenure at loggerheads with the BRS government. Then promptly resigned earlier this year and went back to the BJP to contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

The Supreme Court had reprimanded

On the other hand, Governor Ravi received a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court for refusing to swear in a minister back into the Tamil Nadu cabinet even after he/she was convicted in a corruption case. Former Punjab Governor Banwarilal Purohit was also among the long list of people like him/her who refused to sign bills passed in the assembly. After this, he/she had to face humiliation from the apex court. The governor is expected to follow the Constitution while appointing chief ministers and managing unstable periods when the government loses majority in the assembly. he/she should not blindly follow the orders of the Center or any other political agenda.

What did Bhagat Singh Koshyari do?

But remember former Maharashtra governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari? he/she helped topple the Uddhav Thackeray government by demanding a floor test even though (in the words of the Supreme Court) he/she had ‘no objective material to conclude’ that Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. The Sarkaria Commission had discussed various ways of appointing a governor, including holding an election and allowing the chief minister a say in the appointment to reduce confrontation in opposition-ruled states. In the end, it opted to maintain the status quo on this crucial aspect.

It’s time to look for a different way

Now, 77 years after Independence, perhaps it is time to find a different way of appointing governors. As the Sarkaria Commission pointed out, holding elections or allowing states to recommend names may defeat the purpose of the post of governor and go against the idea of ​​creating a counterbalance in our power structure. But how about involving the leader of the opposition in the appointment? Several powerful posts that require political neutrality involve the leader of the opposition in the selection process, such as the chief election commissioner (CEC), the chief information commissioner, the CBI director and the chief vigilance commissioner.

There will be transparency in the recruitment process

Many may argue that the leader of the opposition was included in the panel set up to appoint the Chief Election Commissioner under pressure from the Supreme Court. But the government reduced his/her role to a minority by making the Prime Minister and a Union minister part of the three-member panel. While this creates a one-sided selection process in favour of the government, at least an opposing viewpoint will be expressed, which will promote ideas necessary for a vibrant democracy. This will also bring in much-needed transparency in the process. The same can be done in the selection process of governors. The opposition leader can add an additional layer of scrutiny.

The center should let go of its grip

It is indeed sad that neither the BJP nor the Congress has pushed for a system that forces governors to play a less partisan role, even though both parties have suffered at the hands of partisan governors. The Centre must now give up its grip on this undemocratic lever of power that has been used so often to hurt our federal structure.