Stop, your excellency. Let chief ministers govern

Seventy-six years after Independence, we are harking back to the days of the 'raj’. This time it’s the sahebs in the Raj Bhawans who have taken it upon themselves to disrupt the functioning of democratically-elected representatives (and governments).

On June 29, India’s democratic tenacity was tested by an order issued from Tamil Nadu’s Raj Bhawan, dismissing minister Senthil Balaji from Chief Minister M K Stalin’s Cabinet. The order issued by a former IPS officer-turned-governor had markers of signs signalling deep trouble for India’s democracy. Thankfully, a few hours later better sense prevailed on his excellency, and the order was kept in abeyance. During this illegal dismissal saga, Stalin stood his ground as the head of the elected government and exposed the ulterior motives of the Governor. Eventually, against the deplorable gubernatorial politics, democracy won.

This is the latest in a long list of instances where governors have acted against elected governments in states and Union Territories.

The history

While there was consensus in the Constituent Assembly on retaining the office of the Governor, differences emerged about the procedure and mode of appointment. There were apprehensions about a politician Governor, who could be partisan, as it is happening today. The Congress had to issue a whip to its members in the Constituent Assembly to vote for governors to be appointed by the President, despite the debate being inconclusive.

More than seven decades later, democratically-elected representatives need to conclude this long-pending debate as it becomes apparent that the apprehensions of the Constituent Assembly are coming true with partisan political figures compromising the integrity of the office of the Governor for political interests.

Soon after Independence, the Governor's discretion was used to abuse the provisions of Article 356 to dismiss non-Congress governments, such as PEPSU (1953) and Kerala (1959). The Supreme Court's Bommai judgment (1994) marked the end of governors serving as puppets for the Centre in invoking Article 356.

Despite a landmark judgment that brought the use of Article 356 under judicial review, political appointees as governors continue to pose a grave threat to the ideals of federalism and democracy. The actions of Governors appointed to non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states since 2014 gives the impression that they have been given a clear mandate: stir up political chaos, skilfully seek out problems, disseminate misinterpretations, and implement misguided solutions. During this time, governors have frequently exceeded their constitutional boundaries, transforming into de facto political agents of the BJP, and on occasion, even assuming the role of shadow chief ministers. The imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand (2016) or the resignation of Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in 2022 exemplify instances where the governors’ political manoeuvrings failed the litmus test of impartiality and adherence to the Constitution.

A Governor’s political interest is made even more clearer with the opportunity for governors to make a comeback to electoral politics. Two of Delhi’s former chief ministers have taken up gubernatorial assignments in the past, along with many others.

AAP’s fight

In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government and the people of Delhi have been at the receiving end of the political vendetta of the Centre-appointed Lieutenant-Governor (L-G). Despite there being a clear constitutional mandate of assigned duties, the Delhi Cabinet was obstructed from carrying out its duties, leading to protests at the L-G house for routine matters such as refusal to sign files. Even recently, the Union government went against a unanimous Supreme Court judgment to introduce an ordinance, aimed at dismantling the democratic accountability of officials in Delhi.

Chief ministers from Opposition-ruled states have frequently raised the issue of interference by governors. The political interferences by Raj Bhawans don’t serve the interest of a democratic India; it rather is a reminder of the dark days well behind us as a nation. For the people of India, gubernatorial duties have little significance as they vote to elect their representatives. Overzealous governors in Opposition-ruled states are leaving no opportunity to fight proxy political battles with elected chief ministers. In essence, governors do not have the people’s mandate to rule over them in any capacity.

At this critical juncture, as a nation, we must take the call if we want such undemocratic diktats from unelected leaders, or should we protect, cherish, and deepen India’s democracy by empowering our elected representatives. People must be governed by leaders whom they elect, not by those who are appointed to governor over them.

(Reena Gupta is an advocate and national spokesperson of Aam Aadmi Party. Twitter: @Gupta_ReenaG)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.