Congress, and other opposition parties have launched a tirade against Modi government for its polite request to governors – appointed during erstwhile UPA dispensation – to put in their papers and thus give a free hand to latter in running the affairs of the country.
Astutely ignoring its own actions in 2004 (when UPA came to power) in dismissing lock stock and barrel governors appointed during the earlier NDA regime (1999-2004) – in some cases, not even giving time to make an honourable exit (for instance, Gujarat’s Kailashpati Mishra) – Congress is now citing a judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in 2010 which requires that government cannot arbitrarily transfer/remove appointed governors without ‘compelling’ reasons.
Any words of un-solicited advise from Congress which has demonstrated its hypocritical approach umpteen times – latest being on the issue of its insisting leader of opposition (LoP) status in current (16th) Lok Sabha despite not qualifying for it as per rules and not granting LoP status to any other party when it was in power (e.g. 1952-1969; 1971-1977 and 1980-1989) under the same rule – cannot be taken seriously.
Even on merits, the present government has not committed any constitutional impropriety much less not complying with the directions of the apex court in asking for the resignation of concerned governors. As per article 156 (1), the central government can call for resignation ‘without giving any reason’.
There is sound rationale behind founding fathers of our constitution granting un-fettered powers to Govt of India in appointing governors. A governor in the state is the representative of the President of India and is required to act in a manner to fully protect the interest of the country in accordance with constitutional provisions.
Under the constitution, there are areas which are within exclusive jurisdiction of centre while, others are in concurrent list where both centre and state have been assigned powers. Therefore, the actions of the governor should be synchronous and in harmony with the policies and programs of the central government.
So, when there is a change of government at the centre and the new political dispensation comes up with its policies and programs – attuned to the hopes and aspirations of people who have given it a mandate to govern – it is only logical that the governors appointed under previous regime make way.
This is all the more essential in a scenario whereby it is well known that appointments under UPA regime were made overwhelmingly on political considerations and continuation of such persons would only obstruct smooth running of the affairs of the country. It would be too much to expect objectivity and impartiality in their actions in case they are allowed to continue!
The full alignment of a person in this gubernatorial position with the central government’s ethos and its policies and programs is all the more crucial now when Hon’ble prime minister has laid special emphasis on promoting ‘cooperative federalism’.
In his reply to the debate on President’s address to joint session of parliament, Mr Modi had categorically stated that he will carry states along in the task of promoting inclusive development and building the nation. He talked of rejuvenating the now defunct national development council (NDC) and inter-state council (ISC).
The actions of the governor – as fully empowered representative of the President – can strengthen the spirit of ‘cooperative federalism’. In a reverse situation, it may even undermine the spirit if actions are not properly guided and calibrated.
In this backdrop, as a leader of BJP put it very aptly, such governors should have put in papers on their own volition. Far from that, a number of them have refused to budge even after a humble request was made from home ministry.
An argument that a governor enjoys constitutional immunity and should be allowed to continue irrespective of any change of government at the centre does not cut ice when viewed in the context of realities on ground zero. It is a known fact that such appointments were made entirely on political considerations.
Ms Sheila Dikshit was appointed governor, Kerala – when model code of conduct was in force – despite her implication in commonwealth games (CWG) scam. Likewise, there are reports of involvement of MK Narayanan and Bharat Vir Wanchoo governor of West Bengal and Goa respectively in Augsta Westland scam.
Under such circumstances, when at the time of appointment, the principles of honesty, integrity and high moral ground were not observed, it would be unfair and illogical to invoke the dictum of constitutional immunity at the time of contemplating their replacement.
Other arguments that President may not approve of government’s decision (thereby causing embarrassment to latter) or there is a possibility of concerned governor challenging it in apex court are fetched and un-tenable.
Technically, the President can at best send back the cabinet’s recommendation to remove the governor for re-consideration. However, in the second round, he has no other option but to approve decision of the government.
It would be preposterous to brand Modi’s decision to seek the resignations of concerned governors as an act of political vendetta. It has to be seen in the larger perspective of enabling his government to garner the required ‘flexibility’ to run the affairs of the country in these challenging times.
A prime minister who despite having an absolute majority of his own party BJP (not just NDA) dedicates himself to work in a spirit of accommodation – even to a point of seeking support of every MP – in running the affairs of country, won’t have an iota of reflex to be acting in a partisan manner.
Yet, if Modi has decided to put in place his own team of governors which is also in sync with the long cherished tradition, it is primarily because he is driven by overriding interests of the nation. Even as the President gives his assent, it is hoped that Congress (and all other opposition parties) will graciously accept this and extend full cooperation in ensuring a smooth transition.