|
Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 21 June 2017
Puducherry Declaration
L-G NOT RUBBER STAMP
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
“If L-G
is a rubber stamp, why send files to me?” asked Lieutenant Governor of
Puducherry Kiran Bedi to which Chief Minister V Narayanasamy retorted, “Ours is
an elected government that has the democratic right to govern”. The fight
between the two authorities has reached the climax when the Puducherry Assembly
passed a resolution on 16th June to bestow more powers to the
elected government and curtail that of the LG.
After Delhi, Puducherry is displaying some
intricacies of Lt. Governor-Chief Minister relationship, taking it to a new low
that is unhealthy for a federal system of democracy. In a statement placed in
the Assembly in a recent controversy over admission to medical colleges, the CM
said that the LG should “either prove the charges or publicly apologise for
misguiding the people and students”.
A seasoned politician from a national party as
CM and an assertive personality from the ruling party at the Centre as the LG, differences
cropping up every day in the governance of this union territory reflect some
anomalies in the constitutional arrangement. More than the issues involved and
the “style of functioning” exhibited, the exchanges between the two top most
governing authorities in the union territory dragging constitutional questions deserve
our attention.
The Constitution has conferred additional
role and functions to Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories compared to
that of Governors of full-fledged States. Only three UTs – National Capital Territory,
Puducherry, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have Lieutenant Governors.
That the present LG of Puducherry takes her
work in right earnest exercising her authority in full cannot be a surprise to
anybody. When she assumed her office with great enthusiasm, she exclaimed that
“it is a Union Territory which means one can do so much more”. A hint indeed,
that she will not remain a rubber stamp! What cannot be allowed is any
violation of prescribed roles and functions of the LG and the Council of
Ministers from either side.
The Union Territories Act, 1963 provides for
a Legislative Assembly with a Council of Ministers to govern the UT of
Puducherry liberated from the French rule in 1954. It confers a status of partial
statehood for the Union Territory placed directly under the control of the
President of India. The LG is appointed by the President.
The resultant arrangement -- a combination of
a Cabinet system of government with an elected legislature and an appointed Governor
having some substantial executive authority prescribed under the Constitution --
seems to be the root cause of the present friction. Special powers are vested
with the LGs in the three UTs where they are appointed in view of the nature of
administrative functions in these places. Puducherry had to undergo changes in
the administrative system.
It is seen both in Delhi and Puducherry,
where the cold war between the Lt. Governor and the Chief Minister has taken a
form different from the common pattern of Centre-State political struggle
emanating from the role of Governor with respect to government formation and
dismissal. In these two UTs, even normal day-to-day activities of the
government are affected as though there is no clear line between the spheres of
the two functionaries.
Differences are voiced over any matter in
Puducherry – disinvestments, loans to farmers, free education to Scheduled
Caste students, medical admission and so on. Press reports suggest that the LG
had directed officials at the secretariat to form WhatsApp groups for quick
dissemination of official information. This did not go well with the CM who
issued a circular banning usage of social media by government officials for
sharing official information which was cancelled by the LG as “null and void”.
The episode sets the stage for direct confrontation.
In another reported instance, transfer of a
Municipal Commissioner by the government following the ruling of the Speaker of
the Assembly, was cancelled by the LG claiming to be the competent authority to
regulate service matters. The dispute here is on a vital question of division
of powers.
Disturbed by information that the Lt.Governor
had been asking for advance copies of letters and reports from departmental
secretaries, the CM, conscious of being an elected authority responsible to the
legislature, is reported to have asked the LG to “refrain from issuing irregular
and illegal instructions… bypassing laid down norms and procedure”. To the LG
committed to exercising authority prescribed by the letter of the law, this is “tantamount
to obstructing the duties of the Lt. Governor”.
Who is obstructing the other and where is the
trespass are indeed constitutional questions. But, it cannot also be denied
that behind the battle is politics for such issues arise only when there is
clash of political party interests.
The trouble seems to be inherent in the
system itself. We adopted ceremonial heads for a parliamentary democratic government
and are now used to look upon the head as a titular chief with no real
authority in day-to-day administration. But, in the case of Union Territories,
the Constitution has clearly given extra role and responsibilities to the
Administrator and the LG. Any reference to the spirit of the law or
judicial interpretation will have to take into account the distinction
deliberately made between Governor and Lieutenant Governor.
Ever since social media has become a popular
form of instant mass communication, questions of secrecy and privacy have
become secondary and in fact ignored as irrelevant and unenforceable. Discussions and varied opinions expressed in
the course of decision-making often become public not always to the advantage
of arriving at quick, wise or best decisions of an issue.
In keeping with her avowed idea “to connect
with the people” as her first task for better governance, Bedi has been
conducting open house meetings to gather public views and opinions. “My work has always been on public-centric
services”, she said expanding opportunities for public participation in
governance.
Superficially, it looks like a struggle for
pre-eminence in the administration of the union territory, but the instances of
clashes reveal some amount of overlap in their relative roles and
responsibilities. Section 44 of the Union Territories Act allows the LG to “act
in his discretion” in the matter of law-making even though the Council of
Ministers has the task of aiding and advising him. In case of any difference,
the matter has to be referred to the President. However, the LG can act if the
matter is urgent. Under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the sanction or the
recommendation of the LG are necessary for introducing bills/amendments
regarding several matters and for regulation of any tax.
Assertion of such powers though legal has
become subject to controversies partly due to non-use of the powers in the
past. At the same time, constitutional amendments cannot be made as quick fix
solutions or temporary solutions for deep-rooted problems under political or
popular pressure.
Neither the CM nor the LG is a “rubber stamp”
in the UT. What we need is only clearer demarcation of their respective space.
We hope Puducherry in the hands of two experienced leaders will show the way
out without stopping with exposing the hurdles.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
New Delhi
19 June 2017
|
Archives 
