In the last two
posts (Part I and Part II), we studied the origin and scope of Doctrine of Pleasure. In the present
post, we will discuss the Constituent Assembly Debates on removal of Governors
and the Sarkaria Commission Report.
It is said that
while many of the Governors may come from a political background once they are
appointed as Governors, they owe their allegiance and loyalty to the
Constitution and not to any political party and are required to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution. This becomes quite clear after reading the
oath or affirmation by the Governor under article 159 of the Constitution[1]. Like the President,
Governors are expected to be apolitical, discharging purely constitutional
functions, irrespective of their earlier political background. Governors cannot
be politically active. Thus in the B.P. Singhal’s Case, the court held
that it is not necessary that the Governors should be in “sync” with the
policies of the Union Government or should subscribe to the ideology of the
party in power at the Centre.
Shri Jawaharlal
Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar expressed in the Constituent Assembly that:
Shri Nehru
said:
“But on the
whole it probably would be desirable to have people from outside – eminent
people, sometimes people who have not taken too great a part in politics …… he
would nevertheless represent before the public someone slightly above the party
and thereby, in fact, help that government more than if he was considered as
part of the party machine.”
Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar stated:
“If the
Constitution remains in principle the same as we intend that it should be, that
the Governor should be a purely constitutional Governor, with no power of
interference in the administration of the province”.
Thus on a close
reading of the Constituent Assembly Debates, one would find the
following disclosures:
(i) The
intention of the founding fathers was clearly to adopt the route of Doctrine of
Pleasure, instead of impeachment or enquiry, with regard to removal of
Governors.
(ii) It was
assumed that withdrawal of pleasure resulting in removal of the Governor will
be on valid grounds but there was no need to enumerate them in the Article.
Sarkaria
Commission has also mentioned quite a bit in relation to removal of the
Governors. The Report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre State Relations
states that:
“Further, the
ever-present possibility of the tenure being terminated before the full term of
5 years, can create considerable insecurity in the mind of the Governor and
impair his capacity to withstand pressures, resist extraneous influences and
act impartially in the discharge of his discretionary functions.
Repeated
shifting of Governors from one State to another can lower the prestige of this
office to the detriment of both the Union and the State concerned. As a few
State Governments have pointed out, Governors should not be shifted or
transferred from one State to another by the Union as if they were civil
servants. The five year term of Governor's office prescribed by the
Constitution in that case loses much of its significance.”
The Sarkaria
Commission recommended that the Governors tenure of office of five years in
a State should not be disturbed except very rarely and that too for some
extremely compelling reason. It is indeed very necessary to assure a measure of
security of tenure to the Governor's office.
At this
juncture, let us also remember the words of Justice Holmes:
“The
provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their
essence in their form; they are organic, living institutions….. The
significance is vital, nor formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking
the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of
their growth”.[2]
In the next
post, I will conclude by talking about the scope of Judicial Review of Doctrine
of Pleasure and my views on the current scenario on resignation of Governors.
[1] Article
159 – Every Governor and every person discharging the functions of the
Governor shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the
presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the State, or, in his absence, the senior-most the following form,
that is to say —
“I, A. B., do swear in the name of God that I will
faithfully execute the office of Governor (or discharge the functions of the
Governor) of ............. (Name of the State) and will to the best of my
ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that
I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of.……… (Name
of the State).”
[2] Gompers
vs. United States, 233 US 603.
No comments:
Post a Comment