04-FEB-2016

Time to debate Governer's power

By imposing President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh even before a mandatory(अनिवार्य)floor test could establish conclusively(अंतिम तौर से) that the Congress government of Nabam Tuki had lost its majority, the Central government acted prematurely(समय से पहले). Indeed, the Supreme Court in seeking(मांग) reasons for the decision, and observing that “the matter is too serious”, underscored what President Pranab Mukherjee had said in his new year’s message to Governors: they must play, he said, their assigned role while respecting the distinct(अलग) authority and responsibility vested(स्थित/निहित) in the executive(कार्यकारी), the judiciary(न्यायतंत्र) and the legislature(विधायिका), and help “create a harmonious relationship(सौहाद्रपूर्ण संबंध) between the Centre and the States”. When the Centre sought(मांग) his assent(अनुमति) for President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. Mukherjee cautioned against a hasty decision — indeed, one that runs counter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise of cooperative federalism(सहकारी संघवाद). But the government, projecting it as a ‘textbook case’ for the use of Article 356, had its way. On Monday, the Supreme Court accepted that a Governor is not answerable to the courts for the exercise of the powers of his office. But simultaneously(एक ही समय पर) it ordered the Centre to release all documents — including personal letters of the Chief Minister and of his ministerial colleagues(मंत्रिमंडलीय सहयोगियों) — to enable Mr. Tuki to prepare a defence against the contents of Governor J.P. Rajkhowa’s report that accuses him of instigating(भड़काना) fellow Nyishis and funding public protests to seek(तलाश करना) the latter’s exit. The Governor also claimed(दावा करना) that he had been abused, threatened(धमकी देना) and nearly assaulted(हमला करना) by Mr. Tuki’s Ministers, who joined protesters (प्रदर्शनकारियों) and even sacrificed a mithun outside the Raj Bhavan.
                  However, this is not the first case of a clash between a Governor and the Chief Minister of a State in the past year. The Governors of Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam — Tathagata Roy, Ram Naik, Keshari Nath Tripathi and P.B. Acharya, respectively — have been on a collision course(टकराव की राह) with the Chief Ministers of the States. Mr. Naik clashed with Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav’s choice of Lokayukta, and sat over the State’s nominations for five members to the Legislative Council. In Assam, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi accused Mr. Acharya of “interfering(दखल)” in the political affairs of the State. Mr. Acharya also hit the headlines for his controversial(विवादास्पद) “Hindustan is for Hindus” comment. Mr. Roy attracted adverse(विपरीत) attention when he said publicly: “Whatever gave you the notion(विचार/धरना) that I am secular(धर्म निरपेक्ष)? I am Hindu.” The imposition(आरोपण) of President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh is, in a sense, in keeping with the record of governments of all hues(रंग) to use pliant(कोमल) Governors to dismiss opposition-run State governments. However, at present there is another concern: many Governors are being seen as active agents working to implement(लागु करना) the Sangh Parivar’s Hindutva agenda. Later this month, when the President hosts the annual Governors’ conference, it would be in order to have a deeper discussion on the constitutional proprieties that should guide a Governor’s word and deed.