Nilacharal

Role of the Governor

The Governor did send the report however it was not to the satisfaction of the Centre and the Cabinet in Delhi advised for the recall of the Governor. The logic here is that the Governor gave the same version as the State government claims. It is a ridiculous logic. If the Governor believes what the State government claims, how can it be a ground to term it as unsatisfactory. In the first place when the Centre asked for an independent report from the Governor, its representative in the State, it believes that he/she would be impartial. The moment they understand that the report from the Governor is not in their favour, they term the Governor as partial and biased.

Before we proceed any further in our analysis on fundamental issues that came to the fore after the arrest episode, the author wants to make a disclaimer that the following rguments do not suggest that the author is supporting the Governor or the State's improper handling of the entire issue. The following arguments should be seen in the universal context rather than restricting us to this arrest episode. The author believes that the democracy evolves as it makes mistakes. While we condemn the mistakes, let us also carefully look at the learnings and issues it has thrown at us. Let us not be emotional and let us see everything with a balanced mind.

When the Governor of that day recommended the dissolution of Mr Karunanidhi's government in his previous (second) tenure, Mr Karunanidhi termed him as a biased person (against him). Similarly, when the Governor of the day during his third tenure refused to give the "much wanted" report to the Central Government of that day to dismiss the very same Karunanidhi, the Centre termed him as biased towards Karunanidhi and dismissed Karunanidhi and his government based on the "Otherwise" clause in the article 356 in lieu of the Governor's report. And the Governor of the day was dismissed/recalled. And now, Ms Fathima Beevi is termed as a biased person towards Ms Jaya on the ground that she basically echoed Jaya's claims in her recent report to the Centre.

All these instances clearly show either there is a problem in relying on the Governor as the unbiased representative of the Centre in the State to monitor the State Government's actions/inactions or there is a problem in Centre's attitude towards the Governors. Governors are representatives of the Centre in a State and not the puppet of the PM and the Central Cabinet. The statement from Mr George Fernandes in Chennai raising the question over Ms Fathima Beevi's credibility should not go unnoticed by the educated and the press. I earnestly exhort the press not to ingress too much into the arrest issue alone and look into all the connected issues carefully without any fear or fervour. One needs to deliberate more on this because till the other day (12th May, 2001), Mr Karunanidhi and Mr Vajpayee (the then CM and the current PM respectively) and the President Mr K R Narayanan had full confidence in Ms Fathima Beevi. Even after the Governor's decision to install Jaya as CM, the Centre and the President did not question her credibility and action although DMK and its president started deviating from her logics. Suddenly Ms Fathima Beevi lost the confidence of the Centre.

In fact her report should have been taken seriously when the whole country took strong exception to the police behaviour. It is highly dangerous to vest the power with the Central Cabinet to advice the President to recall his appointee. In fact if a person of high integrity is chosen as the President's appointee and the President of that day is fully convinced of his/her profile, he or she should be allowed to serve a five year term without any hassles. If President's integrity can not be questioned at the drop of a hat, how can one question the credibility of his Appointee alone? Is it not wise enough to put all our minds to come up with the ways and means to select a person of impeccable integrity as the Governor of a State rather than suspecting his/her credibility whenever we rely on the Governor's report on crucial issues like the one happened inTamilnadu. If we are going to dismiss or accept a Governor's report only on the basis of the political constraints of the day, there is no meaning in having a Governor for a State.

In case, if the President suspects/realises that there was a slip in the selection of a Governor or if he/she blatantly does not live up to the integrity and confidence reposed on him/her or if there is a cloud of suspicion around the functioning of the Governor, he/she should be recalled/dismissed only if the following is complied with: two thirds of the State legislature (both the State Assembly and the State Council) and also two-thirds of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha should concur with the allegation that the Governor is not acting as per the Constitution. Unless the Governor's removal is made so stringent like we have for the President's impeachment, it is impossible for the Governor to act as per their conscience.

This author believes that there is a need for a Governor's slot in the State because it is a check for the State from erring. If this is the spirit, their position should be safeguarded from any politicking. Their selection could be at the discretion of the President but why should their continuance be at his discretion. We inherited this clause from the British Rule where the Federal Government's representative is expected to function at the discretion of the Queen. In a true democracy, no constitutional authority needs to function at the discretion of any one else. We can have checks but should do away with the "discretionary" clauses. The Centre, which professes transparent administration, should immediately release the Governor's report to the public along with the reason as to why it had to recall the Governor.The foremost disturbing fact that surfaces out of this sordid episode is that can the Centre come down on a Governor at the drop of a hat. If they have sufficient reasons they must share that with the nation. ....more