Are Governors Pawns in Political Game?

Sunil Garodia, TIR, 20 June 2014: While the NDA government has chosen a wrong line in trying to ease out state governors, the Congress leaders are least qualified to talk of constitutional propriety in this matter. 

It was the Congress and UPA that had started this trend of removing governors appointed by a previous government when it came to power in 2004. It removed most of the governors appointed by the NDA regime of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. But this should not be an excuse for the present regime to repeat that mistake and make it a convention.

On the other hand, it needs to be pointed out that the post of the governor has lost its sheen not by removals but by appointments. For ages, the Congress has used the post to reward/punish its leaders for three things:

1. As a tool to remove factional leaders from a particular state by appointing them as governor of a different state.
2. To protect leaders against whom charges of corruption have arisen or might arise in future, like the immediate appointment of Sheila Dikshit as governor of Kerala when she lost the plot in the Delhi elections. (Read my earlier article Sheila Dikshit – rewarded or protected?).
3. To reward leaders who are seen to have nothing left to contribute in the party.

Before the anti-defection law was enacted in 1985, governors had a dubious role to play. They could play a politically partisan role, as the then Haryana governor G D Tapase did in 1982, by inviting a party with smaller number of MLAs. Tapase invited Bhajan Lal of the Congress, despite the party being in a minority, to form the government and prove his majority, which he did by enticing MLAs from other camps. But post anti-defection law, this role has been eliminated. Still, governors are seen as a tool to control state governments. Also, the problem is not with governors alone – it is a wider problem of downgrading established institutions.

Regardless of whichever party rules the country, it needs to be recognized that institutions make democracy and independent and vibrant institutions are drivers of growth. Democracy works on checks and balances. Concentration of power in one hand – or even a few hands – is detrimental to the health of a democracy. The tendency of the politico-administrative establishment in India to control all organs of governance is disturbing. Tinkering with institutions destroys the morale of those who works for them and their contribution to growth becomes doubtful.

This government rode the plank of growth and change to win a famous victory. If it is seen to digress from its avowed goals and replicates what earlier governments have done in terms of downgrading institutions, it will defeat itself. It should govern the country as per its declared agenda. If some governors choose to go against the government, then a call can be taken for their removal. But wholesale removals are not proper. Also, the way it is sought to be done (by bureaucrats sounding out governors on their resignation) also shows lack of thinking in this regard.

But there is another angle to the controversy. The unseemly haste with which Sheila Dikshit was appointed as governor of Kerala pointed to a Congress plan to give her constitutional protection from being prosecuted for various scams that erupted in Delhi during her rule. A government seen as struck by policy paralysis was very quick with this appointment. So, what should be done with her now? Should the NDA let her remain protected in her present post or should it remove her and make her an ordinary citizen again so that she faces the music?

The issue is not only of downgrading institutions. It assumes wider ramifications when we see who heads the institution and why was he/she appointed to that post in the first place. Since governors are political appointees, the best way would be to make it mandatory for not appointing a governor if general elections are due within a period of 6 months. The Chief Justice of that state can double up as governor till that time in case of a vacancy. The new government should be allowed to fill vacancies on assuming power.

It is the case of sitting governors that is tricky. One is of the opinion that any new government should take this up on a case to case basis. It should not do anything with governors who have just about a year or so left of their tenure. It can remove governors who were appointed within a period of one year before the general elections. For the rest, constitutional propriety should be followed and they should be removed only if they are seen as creating problems in following the new government’s agenda.

We can also have a debate on whether it will be better for all political appointees, including governors, to voluntarily put in their papers in case of change of government. That will give the new government a free hand in having chosen people in important posts. But as of now, the BJP’s efforts at removing governors has created a wrong impression and shown it to be indulging in the same kind of political gamesmanship for which the Congress came to be hated by the people.