REWIND
New Delhi, 24 November 2022
VITAL OFFICE, NOT SINECURE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 19 April 1983)
Thinking people anxious to see Centre-State relations
function smoothly and develop along healthy lines will need to devote greater
attention to the office of the Governor. Interest in the matter has been
stimulated by the annual conference of Governors, especially the address of the
President, Giani Zail Singh. Significantly, the President spelt out some of his
own ideas and spotlighted the special role of Governors. Among other things, he
said the Governors had a special responsibility as Chancellors of Universities
and should help achieve “the real purpose” of education, namely, mould
character and develop the mind and intellect. The President also stated: “I
believe that Governors by virtue of their mature experience and objective
perception of events can make valuable contribution to the administration of
the State through impartial and sincere advice and counselling.” But the
question is: are the Governors today in a position to offer impartial objective
and sincere advice and play the role expected of them?
Impartially and objectivity are important at any time for a
Governor, who is a link between the State and the Centre. But they are even
more so today on two counts. First, Centre-State relations are under strain as
never before and there is need to turn our thoughts towards ways and means of
ensuring harmonious and cooperative relations. Second, the President has
clarified that the Governor has to exercise his own judgment and discretion in
the appointment of a Chief Minister when no single party commands a majority.
One Governor, it may be recalled, had sought clear-cut guidelines in the
matter, which relates to the most important power exercised by him. GianiZailSingh
said there was no power vested in any authority to issue any directions to the
Governor or lay down any codes or rules for his guidance. The Governor, he
added, would “have to act according to the provisions of the Constitution and
his oath of office in the light of the circumstances obtaining at the
time."
Unfortunately, things today are not what they were originally
envisaged by the founding fathers of our Constitution. Many healthy conventions
built around the office of the Governor during the Nehru regime have fallen by
the wayside. Indeed, few institutions have suffered greater devaluation over
the past two decades. Things have come to such a sorry pass that a question
mark has even gone up over the term of the Governor. He is no longer supposed
to be appointed for five years, as stipulated in the Constitution. Instead, he
is now supposed to hold the office only “during the pleasure of the President”,
provoking a well-known former Governor to candidly comment: “Governors can now
be fired at will. How can you expect anyone to be impartial, objective and
sincere under such conditions.” Consequently, not many eminent persons are
inclined any more to accept the high office and give the country the benefit of
their experience and knowledge. The present set of Governors, undoubtedly, has
some good men. But quite a few incumbents leave much to be desired, to put it
politely.
Contrary to a popular impression, the office of Governor is
not an ornamental sinecure. Nor is the holder required to be an “inert cipher”,
to quote a colourful expression used by the late M.C. Setalvad in his Report of
the Study Team on Centre-State relations submitted in September 1967. A
Governor has a responsibility both towards the Centre and as the head of State.
This task is rendered more difficult as he is required to do this more through
influence than by the exercise of power. If Governors are to fulfill their
obligations properly, nothing is as important as the need to ensure that only
the right persons are appointed. As emphasized by the Setalvad Team, a Governor
“must be a person who by his ability, character and behavior inspires respect. He
must be able to display perception and judgment and an understanding of
political and social forces and an insight into human motives. He must possess
great reservoirs of tact, initiative and patience. He must have and preferably
also experience of the affairs of Government and administration. Above all, he
must be impartial”.
Admittedly, these qualities are not easy to find in a
single person. Many of those who have filled the posts of Governors have fallen
short of the standard or, shall I say, woefully short. But the real reason for
this state of affairs is not the paucity of suitable persons but the “lowly
place” given to the post of Governor in the minds of those responsible for
making these appointments. Much of this is due to what experts describe as the
existence of one-party Government at the Centre and in the States and the
consequent development of a direct axis between the Centre and a State Chief
Minister. Circumstances devalued the post and in the bargain thestandard of
selection of Governors also fell. Regretfully, the post came to be treated largely
as a sinecure for mediocrities or as a consolation prize for “burnt-out”
politicians. Most of the persons selected were old men of the ruling party at
the Centre. The Janata Party did no better when it ruled at the Centre, barring
a couple of exceptions.
There is urgent need to get the Centre to radically change
its attitude towards gubernatorial appointments. The posts should not be treated
as sinecures. Instead, they must be given due recognition as vital offices in
India’s federal polity. Governors should be selected on the basis of merit, not
of patronage and politics. In fact, much of this was emphasised by the Setalvad
Team which also stated the following: “We cannot believe that enough men of the
right calibre cannot be found in this big country... We would recommend that
systematic and careful search should be made to locate the best men, and that
this should be done not after a vacancy arises but well in advance. We would
not go so far as to say that those who have taken part in politics should be
totally barred from consideration. But we should suggest that the selection
should not be confined to the party in power at the Centre, and that in fact
the search for talent should extend not only outside the ruling party but
outside the political sphere itself.”
In the past decade and more, there has been an increasing
tendency to appoint retired civil servants to these posts. True, many among
them possess a wealth of knowledge and have vast administrative experience.
They also have talent and acumen in a remarkable degree. Some are even
distinguished. However, the impression created in the public mind is that, by
reason of their habit and training, they lack the degree of independence and impartiality
which would inspire confidence at the State end. The impression persists even
when some of them as Governors, including those who currently hold office or
retired recently, have acted boldly and impartially. The answer perhaps lies in
making two things clear, as much in the interest of the retired civil servants
as of public men. First, it should be clarified that a Governor will hold
office for a full term of five years except where he is no longer able to
shoulder the responsibility or is guilty of any act not in keeping with the
honour or dignity of the high office.
Two other conventions need to be established if a Governor
is to function impartially and independently not only in relation to the Chief
Minister but also to the Centre except where he must enforce central directions
issued under the Constitution. As the Setalvad Committee observed, “it would
promote independence and impartiality if all occasions were removed for the
Governor either to seek support of his Chief Minister for the extension of his
term or to curry favour with the Centre to obtain an extension or an
appointment in another State.” The end in view could be achieved if a
convention is adopted that a Governor’s term of office shall in no case be
extended beyond five years. (The Constitution prescribes that a Governor shall
hold office till his successor arrives.) Secondly, no person who is appointed
Governor should take part in politics after his appointment --- and, what is
more, after he has relinquished office.
One question remains: should a Chief Minister be consulted
by the Centre before the selection of a Governor is finalized. Not a few argue
that the convention set up during Nehru’s time for prior consultation with the
Chief Minister should be done away with. There is no constitutional obligation,
they assert, for such consultation as the Governor is to be appointed by the
President. Moreover, they put forward two other points. First, a powerful Chief
Minister tends under the arrangement to get a Governor for himself who is
suitably pliable. Second, consultation with a Chief Minister does not have much
meaning in a situation in which Chief Ministers come and go according to
changing political fortunes. Nevertheless, experts are agreed that there is
merit in consulting the Chief Minister beforehand, as strongly advocated by
Alladi Krishnaswamy in the Constituent Assembly. Such a procedure, he said,
would help establish “a close link” between the Centre and the “provinces”, as
the States were then called, and avert the possibility of clashes.
Alas, the positive role of the Governor and his dual
responsibility under the Constitution is still not understood. Much of the
trouble in regard to the office of Governor has arisen because of the widely held
but erroneous belief that the Governor is essentially a representative of the
President in the State --- and is, therefore, subservient to the authorities at
the Centre. Matters have been made worse by many of the Governors acting under
this belief. (Instances are not unknown when Governors were provided drafts of
reports which they then formally sent to New Delhi.) This erroneous belief has
expectedly caused distrust in the States, especially those not ruled by the
party in power at the Centre. The Governor undoubtedly has a responsibility
towards the President, as reflected in the fortnightly reports which Nehru got
them to send in accordance with a decision taken in June 1948. (Curiously, the
Governors now send only monthly reports!) But the Governor also has special responsibility
as the head of State. All in all, the Governor must be enabled to function impartially
without fear or favour in the best interest of our federal Republic. -- INFA
(Copyright, India News And Feature
Alliance)
|