By PTI
NEW DELHI: Opposition members in the Rajya Sabha on Friday expressed concern over differences between governors and elected governments, saying such conflicts affect governance and erode the harmonious relationship between the Centre and states, and demanded changes in the way governors are appointed.
Most of the time governors abide by the ruling dispensation at the Centre rather than constitutionalism, Congress MP L Hanumanthaiah said during a discussion on a private member’s bill.
The bill, moved by CPI(M) MP V Sivadasan, seeks amendments to constitutional provisions related to the appointment and term of office of governors to end “colonial-era indulgences”.
Hanumanthaiah said, “The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern about the delays by governors in assenting to bills passed by the elected state legislators. This violates the constitutional provision and doctrine of constitutional morality. The fact that there is a conflict between the governor’s office and the elected government is a very sad part of democracy and a serious concern of the democratic process.”
ALSO READ | Making sense of Turf war between governors and state governments
He said the conflicts between governors and state governments are affecting governance, eroding the harmonious relationship between the state and the Centre, and having an adverse impact on the governor’s office. “This union-state relation overall in the federal scheme of the Constitution is in the state of disequilibrium,” he said.
The Congress member said that the state must be consulted before a governor’s appointment by the Union government as recommended by the Sarkaria Commission.
“This will ensure much-needed consultation between the central and state governments, thereby strengthening the relationship between both governments in the true spirit of federalism,” he said.
Hanumanthaiah said the Supreme Court must direct the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to frame guidelines for the office of governor in consultation with the Law Commission of India to assent to bills on time to avoid unregulated delays in the future.
He said the President should be empowered to recall the governors who fail to discharge their duties as per Article 200 of the Constitution related to giving assent to bills.
“Article 200 has become a serious concern,” he said.
OPINION | PDT Achary: States vs Governors needs clarity from Supreme Court
Trinamool Congress MP Jawhar Sircar supported the bill. He said the conflicts between the governor and state government have been arising due to “one mischievous word – discretion” – in Article 163 of the Constitution.
“Colonialism spells itself out through the mechanics of power and hegemony. All governors irrespective of the regime are run by diktats issued by undersecretaries and deputy secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs,” Sircar said.
RJD member Manoj Kumar Jha said states in which the BJP is in opposition, it becomes strong because the governor does 60 per cent of the opposition’s tasks.
He also raised the matter of the appointment of vice-chancellors, saying the power to appoint them lies with the governor but accountability on education lies with the states.
CPI(M) member John Brittas said the governors have become tools in the hands of the Centre to destabilise, defame and disrupt state governments.
CPI member Sandosh Kumar P said he cannot support the bill because his party is against the post of governor and seeks its abolition. He said governors have become “political manipulators.”
BJD member Sujeet Kumar opposed the bill, citing constitutional reasons. “The high office of governor is of official responsibility, not accountability. In our scheme of things, the governor plays a very important role in maintaining the federal structure of our Constitution,” Kumar said.
ALSO READ | ‘Serious concern’ SC raps TN, Punjab Guvs for delaying assent to bills
DMK member R Girirajan raised an issue of dispute with the governor in his state and court interference in the matter.
DMK MP M Shanmugam said the governor should be appointed after consultation with the state. He raised the issue of delay in the approval of bills by the governor.
JD(U) MP Khiru Mahto supported the bill, while BJP members D P Vats and Ajay Kumar Singh opposed it. Singh said the maximum misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution has been done by Congress, around 51 times.
DMK MP P Wilson said the powers of the governor can be given to the assembly speaker because governors are a liability. BJP member Biplab Kumar Deb opposed the bill, saying the governor is a link between the Centre and the state. Follow channel on WhatsApp
NEW DELHI: Opposition members in the Rajya Sabha on Friday expressed concern over differences between governors and elected governments, saying such conflicts affect governance and erode the harmonious relationship between the Centre and states, and demanded changes in the way governors are appointed.
Most of the time governors abide by the ruling dispensation at the Centre rather than constitutionalism, Congress MP L Hanumanthaiah said during a discussion on a private member’s bill.
The bill, moved by CPI(M) MP V Sivadasan, seeks amendments to constitutional provisions related to the appointment and term of office of governors to end “colonial-era indulgences”.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Hanumanthaiah said, “The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern about the delays by governors in assenting to bills passed by the elected state legislators. This violates the constitutional provision and doctrine of constitutional morality. The fact that there is a conflict between the governor’s office and the elected government is a very sad part of democracy and a serious concern of the democratic process.”
ALSO READ | Making sense of Turf war between governors and state governments
He said the conflicts between governors and state governments are affecting governance, eroding the harmonious relationship between the state and the Centre, and having an adverse impact on the governor’s office. “This union-state relation overall in the federal scheme of the Constitution is in the state of disequilibrium,” he said.
The Congress member said that the state must be consulted before a governor’s appointment by the Union government as recommended by the Sarkaria Commission.
“This will ensure much-needed consultation between the central and state governments, thereby strengthening the relationship between both governments in the true spirit of federalism,” he said.
Hanumanthaiah said the Supreme Court must direct the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to frame guidelines for the office of governor in consultation with the Law Commission of India to assent to bills on time to avoid unregulated delays in the future.
He said the President should be empowered to recall the governors who fail to discharge their duties as per Article 200 of the Constitution related to giving assent to bills.
“Article 200 has become a serious concern,” he said.
OPINION | PDT Achary: States vs Governors needs clarity from Supreme Court
Trinamool Congress MP Jawhar Sircar supported the bill. He said the conflicts between the governor and state government have been arising due to “one mischievous word – discretion” – in Article 163 of the Constitution.
“Colonialism spells itself out through the mechanics of power and hegemony. All governors irrespective of the regime are run by diktats issued by undersecretaries and deputy secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs,” Sircar said.
RJD member Manoj Kumar Jha said states in which the BJP is in opposition, it becomes strong because the governor does 60 per cent of the opposition’s tasks.
He also raised the matter of the appointment of vice-chancellors, saying the power to appoint them lies with the governor but accountability on education lies with the states.
CPI(M) member John Brittas said the governors have become tools in the hands of the Centre to destabilise, defame and disrupt state governments.
CPI member Sandosh Kumar P said he cannot support the bill because his party is against the post of governor and seeks its abolition. He said governors have become “political manipulators.”
BJD member Sujeet Kumar opposed the bill, citing constitutional reasons. “The high office of governor is of official responsibility, not accountability. In our scheme of things, the governor plays a very important role in maintaining the federal structure of our Constitution,” Kumar said.
ALSO READ | ‘Serious concern’ SC raps TN, Punjab Guvs for delaying assent to bills
DMK member R Girirajan raised an issue of dispute with the governor in his state and court interference in the matter.
DMK MP M Shanmugam said the governor should be appointed after consultation with the state. He raised the issue of delay in the approval of bills by the governor.
JD(U) MP Khiru Mahto supported the bill, while BJP members D P Vats and Ajay Kumar Singh opposed it. Singh said the maximum misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution has been done by Congress, around 51 times.
DMK MP P Wilson said the powers of the governor can be given to the assembly speaker because governors are a liability. BJP member Biplab Kumar Deb opposed the bill, saying the governor is a link between the Centre and the state. Follow channel on WhatsApp
