Unending gubernatorial chaos

Article 153 of the Constitution demands a governor for a state or two or more states together. The post of governor traces back its history to the colonial period. Though the power, functions, and jurisdiction assigned have faded now the post still remains vital for the smooth federal functioning. It is optimized to act as a bridge between Union and state governments in maintaining law and order, providing services to citizens, and ensuring the nation's integrity and sovereignty. Maintaining these roles often creates friction between state governing bodies and the governor. The country has already tasted many of them by now, but the frequency of occurrence has heightened in the recent past. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Telangana, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and the Union Territory of Delhi are the places where the issue is prolonged. It is not a surprise to find all of them are opposition-led or regional parties-led states. The reasons behind the friction range from the pendency of bills to University laws and pro-BJP stand to law and order situation.

The pendency of bills for the assent of the governor is a major cause of tension in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, WB, and Telangana. The governor's assent is the final and indispensable part of law-making. Article 200 specifies the option before the governor to act upon the bill. He can approve it by giving assent, sending it back to the legislative house for reconsideration (if not a money bill), withholding the assent, or reserving it for presidential assent. Here the option to withhold doesn't mention the time period allotted to do the same. Usually, this procrastination is not appreciated since it can delay the whole law-making process which eventually hinders welfare programs. The National Commission To Review The Working Of The Constitution (NCRWC) Report / Venkatachaliah report (2000) put forward a solution by placing a cap of 6 months for assenting the bill. Mostly the bills kept aside are those which have the potential to alter the functioning of the governor or which disappoints the interests of the Union government. For instance, bills related to the University Chancellor which we will deal with soon justify that. The supreme court has entered into the issue on behalf of the petition filed by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu state governments and recognized the delay as a "crucial concern".

The Uncertainty regarding the selection and appointment University Chancellor and Vice Chancellor was another main reason for the row in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Since I'm a Keralite I believe I'm more experienced with the Kerala issue hence briefing it. As per norms, the President is the Visitor/Chancellor of Central Universities and the Governor is the Visitor/Chancellor of State Universities. Both of these roles are similar to ex-officio posts. Under the UGC regulation, it is the responsibility of these two constitutional people to appoint Vice Chancellors to central and state universities. In order to assist them with names a search committee has to be formed. Thus the search committee consisting of eminent personalities has to hand over 3-5 names to the President or Governor from which the final decision is made. Tension started to escalate with the supreme court verdict nullifying the appointment of MS Rajasree as vice chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) raising irregularities in the appointment process. Following this order governor raised similar issues in searching committee reports for selecting vice chancellors in other universities too. The relationship between the government and the governor worsened with indicting each other and even crossing limits by Ministers alleging the governor to be an RSS which doubtlessly humiliates any moral parliamentary system. The state government has now taken a leap ahead by bringing the University Laws amendment bill which will revoke the Governor from Chancellor position. A fresh search committee comprising the Chief Minister, Opposition leader, and Speaker will be responsible for selecting the new Chancellor. The irony is that this bill too is waiting governor's signature. Both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are going through the same chaos with slight changes in their amendment bills. 

The Governor's claim about the interference of the Executive in universities cannot be nullified unconditionally. It is often quoted as the same the reason why the Governor was made chancellor of the university. This can be supported by the Supreme Court order in 1997, the Sarkaria Commission, and the Punchhi Commission where all these bodies reiterated that the governor is not bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers, unlike his other executive functioning. However, it is also crucial to understand the Punchhi Commission recommendation which restraints the governor to be a mere constitutional post. The commission also advised veiling Universities from the governor's presence in order to avoid public criticism.

The Union Territory of Delhi is also not free from this row. The recent among them was related to the posting and transfer of bureaucrats inside Delhi. Earlier this job was assigned to the Delhi government. This shoe will be now filled by the National Capital Civil Services Authority, which consists of the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary of Delhi, and Principal Home Secretary of Delhi. They make recommendations to the lieutenant governor who owns sole discretion. Earlier when the issue was heard by the court the order was in favor of the government later it was quashed by passing a bill in parliament. 

Even in the name of State Day governor and government are entering into skirmishes. It was in West Bengal where the Mamatha Banerji-led government wanted to celebrate April 15 Poila Baisakh as the State Day while the governor went with June 20. June 20 is associated with the partition of Bengal in the pre-independence period. The CM went on to make statements alleging the governor a mere puppet of the Union. It is gradually attaining normalcy after a resolution in favor of April 1 was passed in the Assembly. Similar friction arose during the panchayat poll and the law and order situation associated with it. It was legitimate to tense about the law and order situation because of the violence that was hovering around Bengal during election time.

The constitutional provision of article 163 explicitly asks the governor to act upon the aid and advice of government except for the other mentioned and functions at his discretion. This provides an edge for the state's claim of the governor as just a constitutional post. However, since our country follows a quasi-federal political system in which the union has an upper hand a mediator like the governor is inevitable. Moreover, to bolster the smooth functioning of cooperative federalism it is vital to find a mutual understanding and respect. It will be too Ethiopian to aspire for a governor-state relationship without tussles. But we can make sure the gap is not widening, as the saying goes from the tiny acorn, grows the mighty oak.

Open for criticism 
Nithal S Rahman
nithalrahman@gmail.com