Should CMs have a say in the appointment of Governors?| The Hindu Editorial Analysis for UPSC

the Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to examine the CentreState relationship on various points, felt that the Chief Minister should be consulted before appointing the Governor, for proper working.

Table of Contents

Importance of today’s ”The Hindu Editorial Analysis for UPSC”

Today’s The Hindu Editorial Analysis for UPSC is based on the relations between the governor and CM.
As with the rise in instances of tension, and even standoﬀs, between State governments and Governors, there is once again a debate on the role of the Raj Bhavan.

What is the current debate on the State CM-Governor Issue?

In many Non-BJP states like T.N. and Kerala, there is a rising anguish against the post of governor, according to them,

The appointment of the Governor today is in the hands of the ruling party.
Many Governors function as if the Raj Bhavans are party oﬃces of the ruling party.
They always take decisions as directed by the [Union] Home Ministry and the Central government.
The Governor is supposed to be an independent, nonpartisan person.
The relationship between the Governor and the Chief Minister is what determines smooth functioning. But this has not been happening in many, many cases.

The post of Governor is actually inherited from the past

The Mughals had Governors in order to be able to reach out to vast territories of the empire.
The British also had Governors to be able to govern India.
The Governor is essentially a link between the Centre and the States. The Governor has various functions, such as addressing the joint session of the Assembly and the Budget session, and signing Bills that have been passed by the Assembly. The Governor has administrative and political functions to perform.

What is the role and conduct of the governor?

Governor works as a Link between the centre and states
We are a federal country, which has a clear design that there will be constituent States who elect their own governments, and a Union of States.
So, there is a need to ensure unity and some level of uniformity across the Union. This creates its own tension.
One of the designs of the Constitution, to supposedly manage this tension, is the post of Governor as a link between the Centre and the States.

Whether Chief Ministers should have a say in the appointment of Governors?

As per Article 155 of the Constitution, the Governor is appointed by the President.
But the Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to examine the CentreState relationship on various points, felt that the Chief Minister should be consulted before appointing the Governor, for proper working of the parliamentary system.
The Sarkaria Commission probably thought that if the appointment was made in consultation with the Chief Minister, there would be smooth functioning and better relationships.
The Governor has to make independent decisions, whether it’s the question of deciding a government, the numbers, or the vote of conﬁdence.
He/she maybe at times go against the will of the Chief Minister.
Therefore, to say that the Chief Minister must approve the appointment of Governors is not correct.
But there should be general consultation. The opinion of the Chief Minister would go a long way in helping make the functioning of the Governor in a State more eﬀective and may be more conducive to the interests of the State.

How the relationship between the Centre, the State and the oﬃce of the Governor evolved?

Up to 1967, when Congress was at the Centre and in most States, it went smoothly. Then things went bad in 1967. Between 1967 and 1971, there were three highlevel bodies that looked at this issue.
The report of the First Administrative Reforms Commission was submitted in 1969, the Tamil Nadu government set up the Rajamannar Committee, and the President Secretariat set up a committee. All three said that the Chief Minister should be consulted before the Governor is appointed.
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution said, “It would be appropriate to suggest a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chief Minister of the State concerned to select a Governor.
It also said the committee may include the VicePresident. So, rather than leaving it purely to the executive, it said the Central legislature has a role through the Speaker, and the State has a role through the Chief Minister so that you will ﬁnd somebody who is acceptable to everyone.

What should be done to avert a dispute between the governor and CM?

The Governor speaks about the Chief Minister’s government. Therefore, there has to be cooperation and coordination between the State government and the Governor, irrespective of whether their political loyalties diﬀer.
Governor decides the majority of the government. In many states, it is decided on the ﬂoor of the Raj Bhavan. This is wrong. The majority, minority, the vote of conﬁdence has to be decided on the ﬂoor of the House.
It is the elected representatives who have to decide and present the majority to the Governor.
The running of a normal system in the State of majority rule requires that the Governor not be beholden to the Chief Minister.
The Governor is supposed to be a friend, philosopher and guide, helping from the back, sorting out issues and resolving disputes, even between political parties.
The Governor has to at times advise the Centre on what is happening and what needs to be done. That brings the Centre and the State together.

Conclusion

Getting the Chief Minister involved in the process of governor selection is not right. The Governor cannot be made to feel that the Chief Minister was one of those responsible for his selection; the Governor has to be above the Chief Minister, be independent, be able to function in a nonpartisan manner, and not be beholden to the ruling party or to the Chief Minister.